Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 141 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - no specific charge had been mentioned in the show cause notices issued u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the both the notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 for the impugned year that the AO has not specifically mentioned as to under which limb of Section 271(l)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated by him, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factor [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] We are of the considered view that the AO is required to specify which limb of Section 271 (1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the perusal of the notices, it is clear that the AO has not specified as to under which limb of the section the penalty was imposable. The notices, in fact, are in the standard pro forma wherein the irrelevant clauses have not been struck off. This indicates non application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing the penalty notices. Thus, in the circumstances and facts of the case, the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
|