TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 896/Delhi/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2017 - H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) And Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Salil Kapoor and Somya Singh, Advocates, For the Respondent : Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior Departmental Representative ORDER H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) 1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order dated November 30, 2012 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi pertaining to the assessment years 2006-07, 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical and common, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le doing so the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that this issue has already been decided in favour of the appellant by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) himself in the order passed for the assessment year 2005-06 in the quantum proceedings. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has completely failed to appreciate that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied merely because of rejection of a bona fide claim of the appellant. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in completely failing to appreciate that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on matters involving questions of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Ground No. 10 : That the penalty has been initiated vide notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated December 2, 2005 without any specific charge, hence the said notice and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without juris diction. Ground No. 11 : That the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed without any specific charge, hence the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 3.1 The learned counsel for the assessee requested that keeping in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) (supra), t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal vide its order dated May 31, 2010. In view of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order, a notice was issued on the assessee to show cause why should not penalty be levied under section 271(1)(c). In reply to the notice the assessee submitted its reply on February 8, 2012 and February 16, 2012. The reply of the assessee has been considered by the Assessing Officer who held that explanation of the assessee cannot be regarded to be in good faith, therefore, the penalty of ₹ 60,00,000 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated February 29, 2012. 7. Against the penalty order the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. A. No. 6804/Del/2013 (assessment year 2006-07) [2017] 58 ITR (Trib) 84. In view of above, he requested that the penalty in dispute may be cancelled and the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 9. On the contrary, the learned Departmental representative relied upon the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities along with the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the assessment order dated October 11, 2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act and found that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has not recorded the satisfaction and has not initiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, at the time of impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Supreme Court. The apex court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (supra)-Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by the Assessing Officer 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)(c) 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 the assessee. 10.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in flavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11. As regards the other two appeals are concerned, following the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
