TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As per AO it is fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the I.T. Act. Minimum and Maximum imposable penalty comes to ₹ 4,47,900/- and ₹ 14,13,700/-. I imposed the minimum penalty of ₹ 4,47,900/- with the approval of Addl. CIT, Range-I, Meerut.”, which shows that penalty proceedings ought to fail, ambiguous and vague in as much as in the penalty order it is nowhere stated that the penalty was imposed on which account i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated as the same is not in accordance with law and without recording of satisfaction. - Decided in favour of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings in the name of Mahavir Singh Individual being illegal, void and without jurisdiction deserves to be quashed . 4 . That levy of penalty of Rs . 4,47,900 /- in the name of Sh . Mahavir Singh ( Individual ) sustained by the Ld . CIT ( A ) on the grounds taken and basis adopted and without considering the factual and legal aspects deserves to . be deleted being void, illegal and untenable on facts and in law . 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was passed by the AO in this case on 06.6.2005. In the assessment, additions of ₹ 14,93,000/- was made by considering cash deposit of ₹ 14,93,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. He further stated that in the penalty order dated 6.2.2007 the AO mentioned that subsequently a show cause notice u/s. 271(1) has been issued dated 29.11.2006 fixing date of hearing 14.12.2006, but assessee failed to make the compliance the said notice. It is therefore presumed that assessee has nothing to say in this regard. In my opinion it is fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1) of the I.T. Act. Minimum and Maximum imposable penalty comes to ₹ 4,47,900/- and ₹ 14,13,700/-. I imposed the minimum penalty of ₹ 4,47,900/- with the approval of Addl. CIT, Range-I, Meerut. , which shows that penalty proceedings ought to fail, ambiguous and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to say in this regard. In my opinion it is fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1) of the I.T. Act. Minimum and Maximum imposable penalty comes to ₹ 4,47,900/- and ₹ 14,13,700/-. I imposed the minimum penalty of ₹ 4,47,900/- with the approval of Addl. CIT, Range-I, Meerut. , which shows that penalty proceedings ought to fail, ambiguous and vague in as much as in the penalty order it is nowhere stated that the penalty was imposed on which account i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated as the same is not in accordance with law and without recording of satisfaction. Our afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Delhi High Court ) wherein it has been held that there can be no doubt from a reading of Section 271 ( 1 ) that the AO has to be satisfied that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income before penalty proceedings can be initiated . The recording of the satisfaction of the AO is sine qua non for the purposes of initiating penalty proceedings u / s . 271 ( 1 )( c ). On a reading of the assessment order it cannot be discerned that the AO was satisfied, even prima facie, that a case for initiating penalty proceedings was made out . Nowhere has the AO observed in the assessment order that the assesee has either concealed the particulars of hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
