Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 432 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - non specific charge - concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT:- AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty order whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable. As we have deleted the penalty imposed by the AO & confirmed by the ld. CIT-A on the technical ground, i.e. no specific charge has been invoked as discussed above. Therefore, we are inclined to refrain ourselves from adjudicating the grounds of appeal of assessee raised on merits. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition was made on estimated basis - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any penalty qua to the addition made on estimated basis. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO Vs. Bombay wala readymade stores [2014 (11) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. We set aside the finding of the learned CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI]
|