TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , penalty is liable to be cancelled because the notice itself is vitiated. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order in the case of Sunstar Exposition Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (2017 (8) TMI 75 - ITAT DELHI). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.5295/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For Assessee : Shri Gagan Kumar, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, dated 23rd June, 2017, for the A.Y. 2011-2012, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The assessee filed return of income declaring income at ₹ 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be cancelled. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, relied upon the order of the ITAT, Delhi, G Bench, in the case of Sunstar Exposition Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(2), New Delhi, in ITA.No.4896/Del./2012, dated 12.04.2017, in which in para-6 it is held as under : 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through entire material on record and we find that the entire penalty proceedings initiated in the instant case are vitiated as the notice issued is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as, the said notice nowhere specified whether the proceedings were being initiated for the reason of concealment of particulars of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income and providing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, language used in the end of the assessment order and even while levying the penalty, the A.O. mentioned the same facts. Same facts are mentioned in the show cause notice. The show cause notice issued by A.O. under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, is bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty is liable to be cancelled because the notice itself is vitiated. The issue is cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
