TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. - ITA No. 6804/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2017 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Sh. Ashish Chadha, CA For The Department : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of ₹ 26,50,500/- after allowing a relief of ₹ 2,00,000/-. On receipt of the C1T(A)'s order, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee and after considering the reply submitted by him levied a penalty of ₹ 7,95,150/- which was 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Later on the assessee filed application u/s 154 stating that the CIT (A) has confirmed addition of ₹ 26,50,500/- and penalty on that amount comes to ₹ 7,45,150/-. Accordingly, the AO modified his order on 5.2.2010 and reduced the penalty to ₹ 7,45,150/-. 4. Against the Penalty order the Assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 21.10.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed penalty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. We have also perused the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on --------200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on --------200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court of India reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income Decided in favour of assessee. 8.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
