Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1889 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non striking out inapplicable portions - HELD THAT:- In the penalty notices, the AO did not strike out inapplicable portion. However, in the penalty order, the AO has levied penalty for concealment of particulars of income by invoking Explanation 1 to sec. 271. Provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) specifies two different charges, viz., concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case of Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the initiation of penalty proceedings and levying of penalty should be on the same charge. In the instant case, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings under one charge, but levied penalty under another charge, which is clearly not permissible as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson perinchery (supra). The sequence of events shows that there is lack of application of mind on the part of the AO. Hence the impugned penalty orders are not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by ld CIT(A) in both the years under consideration and also set aside the penalty orders passed for both the years under consideration. On merits, the Ld A.R submitted that the additions have been made on the basis of loose papers found during the course of search on estimated basis. Accordingly the Ld A.R submitted that there is no case for levying penalty on merits also. However, since we have quashed the penalty orders on legal issue urged before us, we do not find it necessary to address the issue on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|