TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same. Therefore, we are inclined to conclude that the penalty proceedings stood vitiated for want of principles of natural justice and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.1261/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM, AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Farrokh Irani. Ld. AR For The Revenue : BCS Naik, Ld. CIT DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was inadvertently claimed and due to mistake on the part of the assessee. 3. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated for both these adjustment / disallowance in quantum order and consequently, the assessee was issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 30/12/2008. Finally, the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty on both accounts by AO vide its order dated 30/06/2009 by placing reliance on Apex court judgment in CIT Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor ( 306 ITR 277) wherein it was held that levy of penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. Reliance was also placed on Apex court decision in the case of Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error, the penalty against the same was not justified particularly keeping in view the conduct of the assessee. In support, the documents pertaining to AY 2001-02 and appellate orders have been placed in the paper book. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [CA No. 6924 of 2012 25/09/2012] to contend that inadvertent error do not entail levy of penalty. 7. Proceeding further, the Ld. AR contended that there was clear disclosure of all material facts in the computation and return of income and hence, mere making of claim which is not found acceptable by the revenue, do not entail penalty as per the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t non-striking off of the relevant portions of standard show-cause notice reflects non-application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. Our attention is further drawn to the fact that the ratio of this case was very much relevant and valid despite the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor ( 306 ITR 277) in view of another judgment of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158] wherein it was observed that reasoning given in the case of Dilip N.Shroff could not be faulted except to the extent of observations regarding necessity of mens-rea for the purpose of Section 271(1)(C). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, despite being fully aware of his claims, made a wrong claim and therefore, rightly saddled with the impugned penalties. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [216 ITR 660 14/01/1992] . 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. Since legal grounds goes to the roots of the matter, we take up the same first. A perusal of the quantum assessment order reveals that the penalty has been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income which, as per settled legal propositions, are different connotations and carry different meaning and two separate limbs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
