Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 396 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - recording of specific finding or not? - defective notice u/s 274 - exemption u/s. 54F is not allowable against short term capital gain - HELD THAT:- While passing final order the Assessing Officer has to record a specific finding for which breach he has visited the assessee with penalty i.e. for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income as laid down in the decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sunita Transport [2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT]. In para 7 of the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer held that it is found to be a fit case to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income to the extent of ₹ 7,30,000/- which indicate that Assessing Officer has not recorded specific finding in respect of reason for imposing penalty in the final penalty order. As considered the similar decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Sh. Hasmukh Jayantilal Thakkar [2018 (6) TMI 30 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein penalty was deleted following the decision of Sunita Transport because of not mentioning specific charges in the penalty order. In the light of the above facts and findings we observe that the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the specific charge in penalty order whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as supra are squarely applicable to the facts of this case and such penalty order is not sustainable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|