TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) as well as of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the penalty, we are of the opinion that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on this legal issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1727/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Ghei ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon. AO as well as CIT Appeal-I had erred and levied and dismissed the penalty appeal of the appellant respectively. Inspite, of the fact, that the quantum appeal had been contested by the appellant. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon. AO as well as CIT Appeal-I had erred and levied and dismissed the penalty appeal of the appellant respectively, on the addition on account in FBT u/s. 115WE (3) of the I.T. Act which was based entirely on the expenses made incurred by the partners of the firm for the business purpose. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Hon. AO as well as CIT Appeal-I had erred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the grounds of appeal. 4. Before us, there is none to represent the case of the assessee despite service of notice. However, considering the factual matrix of the case, and the orders of the Revenue and the availability of assistance of the Ld. DR, we proceed to adjudicate the case. 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently defended the order confirming levy of penalty. Further, ld. DR submitted that penalty u/s.271(1)(d) of the Act was levied on the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. DR submitted that, while levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that the penalty is being levied for filing of inaccurate particulars of income. There is no ambiguity or vaguene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned any limb. However, at the time of levy of penalty, the AO mentioned that this is a fit case for levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961, for filing of inaccurate particulars . This manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existence of ambiguity with reference to applicability of specific limb. It is a settled legal proposition that the AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
