TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.1.2014 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.- Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.499/CTK/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2018 - SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri B.D.Ojha, AR For The Revenue : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR ORDER Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 13.7.2017 for the assessment year 2013- 14. 2. The appeal is time barred by 29 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition alongwith an affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation. 1 Hence, he submitted that penalty of Rs.66,172/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) is, therefore, liable to be cancelled. 7. The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submission of ld Authorised Representative of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 27.7.2016 levied penalty of Rs. Rs.66,172/-. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') 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..The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard profor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
