TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 - Hon ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] For the Appellant- Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For the Respondent- Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JM: These are appeals by the Assessee against 5 orders all dated 28.3.2014 of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, relating to AY 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08 09-10. 2. In all these appeals the Assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO imposing penalty on the Assessee u/s.271(1)( c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed on the Assessee by the AO are as follows: The Assessee is an individual. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )( c) of the Act against the Assessee. The AO passed an order dated 29.6.2012 in AY 2004- 05 to 2007-08 2009-10 imposing penalty on the Assessee u/s.271(1)( c) for concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The orders imposing penalty were also passed ex-parte as the Assessee did not participate in those proceedings. 5. Against the orders of assessment dated 30-12-2011 as also the orders dated 29.6.2012 imposing penalty u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of about 310 days in filing appeal before CIT(A) against the orders of assessments dated 30.12.2011 and a delay of about 135 days in filing appeal against the orders dated 29.6.2012 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the Tribunal in ITA No.1399, 1401, 1403 and 1406/Kol/2014 and this Tribunal by order dated 5.11.2014, condone the delay in filing appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 9. As far as the merits of the order of CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO imposing penalty on the Assessee u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act before imposing penalty does not contain the specific charge against the assessee namely as to whether the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of income or having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Copies of the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act were filed before us in this regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty on defective show cause notice without specifying the charge against the assessee cannot be sustained. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of ITAT in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
