Penalty – Concealment of income – Notice – Essentials of notice – Notice must clearly specify charges against assessee – Notice in printed form without deleting inapplicable portions – Not valid

Penalty – Concealment of income – Notice – Essentials of notice – Notice must clearly specify charges against assessee – Notice in printed form without deleting inapplicable portions – Not valid

In view of the conflict in the decisions of the Division Benches of the Bombay High Court, the following question was referred to the Full Bench.

‘[In] the assessment order or the order made under sections 143(3) and 153C of the Income-tax Act, [when] the Assessing Officer has clearly recorded satisfaction for the imposition of penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), [would] a mere defect in the notice of not striking out the relevant words
[. . .] vitiate the penalty proceedings?’

The Full Bench held as under:

‘i) According to the well-settled theory of precedents every decision contains three basic ingredients: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of fact is the inference which the judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above. For the purposes of the parties themselves and their privies, ingredient (iii) is the material element in the decision for it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject matter of the action. It is the judgment that stops the parties from reopening the dispute. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of precedents, ingredient (ii) is the vital element in the decision. This indeed is the ratio decidendi.

ii) If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds, mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does a mere defect in the notice – not striking off the irrelevant matter – vitiate the penalty proceedings? It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other’s defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee’s favour.

iii) The Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.’

[CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom) overruled. CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom); Pr. CIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation P. Ltd. [2020] 16 ITR-OL 111 (Bom); Pr. CIT vs. New Era Sova Mine [2021] 433 ITR 249 (Bom); and Pr. CIT vs. Goa Dourado Promotions P. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 268 (Bom) affirmed.]