TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice for levy of the penalty itself is invalid and bad in law and as such the resultant proceedings have been vitiated. Once the assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction of the A.O. it would include the validity of the show cause notice which is mandatory before levy of the penalty. Since the notice itself is not legal, therefore, no penalty could be levied against the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.4937/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2019 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Pranshu Singhal, FCA. For The Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi, Dated 3rd August, 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 3.1. He has submitted that notice is bad in law because it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the penalty was proposed to be levied. Therefore, penalty is not leviable. 4. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 5. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. M.M. Industries, NIT Faridabad vs., ITO, Ward-II(4), Faridabad in ITA.No.1301/Del./2016, Dated 31.01.2019, in which on identical facts, it was held as under IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the income. The A.O. vide separate Order levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the concealed income. The Tribunal vide Order dated 18.03.2015 allowed the appeal of assessee for statistical purposes and remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that he has allowed part relief to the assessee vide his Order dated 27.02.2016 and on the balance amount penalty was confirmed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the A.O. has issued show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s.271 of the I.T. Act Dated 29.12.2009 before levy of the penalty in which the A.O. has mentioned as follows: hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mann.com 248 by dismissing the SLP of the Department. In the present case, the A.O. issued show cause notice dated 29.12.2009 which is also mentioned in the penalty order in which A.O. has put the column blank which did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Even in the assessment order A.O. did not mention as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty have been initiated against the assessee as noted above. Therefore, the show cause notice for levy of the penalty itself is invalid and bad in law and as such the resultant proceedings have been vitiated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
