TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principle of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Thus, where the Assessing Officer has failed to mention the charge at the time of recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2389/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2018 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Assessee : NONE (Written Submission) For the Revenue : Sabhana Parveen ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as interest on capital shown in the name of appellant by the firm M/s. M. Mehta Co., Indore. 7. No any direct or indirect query was raised by the Revenue either during search action or during assessment proceedings in respect of additional Income shown by appellant. The appellant has disclosed the abovementioned additional income on her own without there being any query by Revenue. 8. The assessment was completed at the returned income. 9. The impugned penalty is levied on difference in income as per original return of income as well as return filed in response to notice u/s. 153C. 10. No any exact charge i.e. furnishing or concealing particulars of income, is specified either in assessment order or notice issued o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 5 of paper book). 3. It is undisputed fact that the order levying penalty was not served on the appellant in 2012 because the appeal filed on 25/05/2015 against the order dated 29/06/2012 was admitted by CIT(A) without there being any application on behalf of the appellant to condone the delay, if any. 4. Therefore, as the order levying penalty is not put into motion to serve on the appellant within the statutory time limit of section 275, the same please be quashed. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of Pune Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Suman Vastra Alankar (ITA No. 1048/PN/2011 dated 30- 08-2012), in which it is held that order dispatched after statutory time period is bad in law and the same was annul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been initiated in respect of addition of ₹ 69,847/-. The Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings has merely mentioned, penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated . The Assessing Officer has not specified the charge u/s. 271(1)(c) i.e. whether the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, while passing order levying penalty the Assessing Officer has mentioned both the charges of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in para 7 of the order dated 29-06-2012. The relevant extract of the order is as under : 7. I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause, furnished an inaccurate par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
