Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 33 - ITAT SURATPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Manu Engineering Works [1978 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] while considering the question of law whether Tribunal was right or holding the order of Inspecting Assisting Commissioner of Income-tax imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274(2) of the Act, was without jurisdiction and illegal in cancelling the same held that while issuing notice as to penalty order, it was held that it is incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in recent Full Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that whether the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction for imposing penalty one or other or both held that primary burden lies upon the Revenue. Considering the fact that no specific charge while initiating the penalty was mentioned by the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and thereafter Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on account of concealment of particulars of income. Thus, the order of lower authorities committed error in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Thus, in our view the penalty order which was modified by Ld. CIT(A) the impugned order is not sustainable. Thus, the assessee succeeds on primary submission
|