Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 820 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - difference between the slump sale claimed and that of the learned Assessing Officer as per section 50C - Defective notice - non specification of charge - under which limb of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act the penalty was levied ? - HELD THAT:- Penalty order does not reveal that the learned Assessing Officer undertake any new material that was suppressed by the assessee, pursuant to which the detection of concealment of income was found. It’s not the case of the Revenue that the assessee did not reveal the auditor’s report or their claim of slump sale under section 50B of the Act. Further it could be seen that except the valuation covered by the stamp duty, there is nothing on record to show that the value of the slump sale was not ₹ 1.2 crores. Even according to the penalty order, immediately on the learned Assessing Officer issuing show cause notice, the assessee gave up the claim of slump sale and by way of revised computation of income accepted the opinion of the learned Assessing Officer and paid the taxes thereon with interest. The penalty order does not clearly specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was levied. So also, the impugned order by the Ld. CIT(A) also not clear on that aspect. For these reasons, viewing from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that penalty cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be deleted. We accordingly direct for its deletion. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|