TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld.A.O failed to mention the limbs for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. It is the negligence of the Ld. A.O in not making proper specific charge in the notice u/s 274 about the addition for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged addition goes under the limb of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. Notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) dated 19.5.2014 is invalid, untenable and suffers from the infirmity of non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.496/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2019 - MR KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be annulled. 5. That the learned AO erred in passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) by solely relying on the order u/s 143(3). That penalty being a separate proceedings and its not that on every addition confirmed penalty will be imposed. The order of AO so passed and confirmed learned ) is illegal and wrong, the same require to be deleted . 3. The sole issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of levy of penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trading of plywood, door shutters, ceiling tiles and soft board etc. Return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order the following was mentioned:- In connection with the penalty proceedings U/S 271(I)(c) for the assessment years 2007-08 you are requested to attend my office on or before 21.01.2010 at 11:OOAM to show cause why penalty should not be imposed . 6. He submitted that it is a settled law that blanket penalty proceedings so initiated are bad in law and the notice so issued require to quashed. The AO while passing the order u/s 271(I)(c) also imposed penalty by holding as under:- In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars/concealed particulars of his income amounting to ₹ 14,54,260/- and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 . 7. He further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay. (xii) CIT V/s M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows ITA No.380 of 2015 High Court of Karnataka. (xiii) M/s. ABR Auto Pvt. Ltd V/s ACIT Circle 1(1), ITAT Delhi Bench ITA No.6236/Del/2015 (xiv) DCIT-1(2)(2) V/s M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No.7386/MUM/2014 (xv) M/s. Orbit Enterprises V/s ITO 15(2)(2) ITAT Mumbai Bench ITA No.1596 1597/MUM/2014 (xvi) S. Chandrasekhar Vs. ACIT ITA No.386/2016 High Court of Karnataka. 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through various judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Kumar Gupta Prop. M/s Aradhana Distributers, Plot No. 162 Shop No. G, Ashirwad Complex, Zone-I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Sir / Madam, Sub:- Penalty Proceeding u/s.. 271( 1 ) ( c) ..of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the AY 2007-08 In connection with the penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) for the assessment year(s) 2007-08 you are requested to attend my office on or before 03.01.2014at 11 :00 AM to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. However, if you do not wish to be heard in person in this regard, you may submit your written submissions so as to reach me by the above date which will be considered before disposal of the matter. Sd/- ( Binay Kumar Rai) Income Tax Officer -1 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should know the grounds on which he has charged specific otherwise opportunities of natural justice denied. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assesssee in another limb is bad in law . 15. Examining the facts in the light of the above referred judgments we find that in the body of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the Ld.A.O failed to mention the limbs for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. It is the negligence of the Ld. A.O in not making proper specific charge in the notice u/s 274 about the addition for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
