TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccurate particulars of income and has to strike off the charge not applicable. Thus we are of the considered view that the proceedings initiated by the AO without specifying the specific charge under which the penalty is proposed to be initiated is bad in law and so is the consequent order.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO.883/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Assessee : Shri J D Mistri, Sr.Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Suman Kumar ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: The captioned is appeal by the assessee pertaining to assessment years 2006-07. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Mumbai, dated 12.12.2013 which in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC). 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessed by observing and holding as under : 4.4 In the present case the assessee had accepted during the assessment proceedings itself about wrong claim of the depreciation. The excess depreciation to the extent of ₹ 23,45,989/ was accordingly disallowed. On the issue of disallowance of ₹ 23,10,223/- on account of professional fee, the assessee though raised the-Issue bef1Jre'CIT(A) in quantum appeal, but did not press it for the reasons that in the' facts of:, the case deduction was not in accordance with the provision of the IT Act. Even if the issue was of deferment on account of amortization, the assessee would be treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 12.3.2012 wherein again the AO stated that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) were attracted as the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR finally submitted that in the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing the penalty, the AO again stated that explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) was applicable. The ld. AR argued that it is settled position of law that no penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act until and unless specific charge is pointed out by the AO under which the penalty was proposed to be levied. In view of the said facts and circumstance of the case the ld.AR prayed before us that the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CT, 1961. No.ACIT/Cir 2(2)/271(1)( c )/2011-12 Office of the Asst.CIT Circle-2(2), 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road. Mumbai-400020 ( 022-22077580) Date: 12.3.2012 The Principal Officer, The Manjri Stud Farm Privater Limited, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005. PAN:AAACT1947J Sir, Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2006-07 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income thereby the penal provisions of section 271(1) of the Act are attracted in your case, You are hereby requested t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin time allowed and the manner required by he said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice u/s n 22(4)/23(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or u/s 142(1)143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Have concealed the particulars the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income ... You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.00 AM/PM on 5.11.2008 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)( c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory(supra) has been dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court. 10. After examining the facts of the case in the light o the decisions of Hon ble Karnataka High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court (supra) we are of the considered view that the proceedings initiated by the AO without specifying the specific charge under which the penalty is proposed to be initiated is bad in law and so is the consequent order.. Since, we have already decided the appeal of the assessee on technical and legal ground, there is no need to go into the merits of the case. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th Sept, 2017. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
