TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. We are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is reasoned one on this legal issue. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this legal issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.2023/PUN/2016, C.O. No.03/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Assessee : Shri N. R. Agarwal And Shri Vijay Saboo For the Revenue : Shri Sanjeev Ghai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal and the assessee is in Cross Objection defending the order of the CIT(A). 5. Before us, ld. AR for the assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue reiterated the submissions/arguments as made before the lower authorities. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and find that this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we pursed the orders of the Revenue authorities. On perusal of para 6 of the assessment order, we find the following is the reasons for initiation of penalty proceedings :- 6. ........... Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is rightly deleted/cancelled by the CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the order Assessing Officer. 11. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction suffers from ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, considering the above referred binding judgments, such penalty order is unsu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c). Assessee came to know this aspect only after consulting C.A. Mr. N. R. Agarwal who advised us to file Form No.36A immediately as substantial legal issue was involved. 15. Considering the above reasons given by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the affidavit, we find it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the cross objection of the assessee. 16. Referring to the issue raised in the cross objection, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer demonstrated the ambiguity with reference to the satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR brought our attention to the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
