TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frain ourselves from adjudicating the grounds of appeal of assessee raised on merits. - I.T.A. No. 1570/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Biren V. Shah, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Jaya Chaudhary, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Gandhinagar arising out of the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Mehsana Ward 5, Kadi under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to The Act ) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty i.e. 300% of the Tax evaded of the concealed income comes to ₹ 2,96,208/-. In appeal, same was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) hence, the appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the penalty does not fulfill the criteria laid down u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further that, specific charge though required to be mentioned in the show-cause notice as to whether the show cause is for concealment of income or for inaccurate particulars of income as held by different High Courts has not been adhered to by the Learned AO while issuing the show-cause. According to the Learned Advocate, the show-cause notice suffers from vagueness or ambigui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that the order imposing penalty does not specify the guilty committed by the assessee for such penalty. It appears from the penalty order that the AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a quasi-criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the IAC was liable to be struck down. 5. The principles laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above case are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty orders whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
