TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is on account of non-application of mind and therefore on this account itself the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO.2344/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For The Department : Shri Anoop Hiwase ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-32, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A)] dated 12.03.2014 for the Assessment year 2006-07 in sustaining the penalty levied U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referring to the copy of the notice issued U/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act submitted that there is non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in initiating the penalty proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer did not specify any charge for which the penalty is proposed to be levied. It is not clear from the notice as to for which limb of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of said income. While passing the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, while passing the Penalty Order the Assessing Officer levied penalty for concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, we observe that there is a complete non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in initiating the penalty proceedings. 6. An identical situation has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in Meherjee Cassinath Holdings v. ACIT (supra) as to whether the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without striking off one of the limbs and without specifying the specific charge in the notice initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income in the Assessment Order and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4] and also various decisions held that action of the Assessing Officer in non-striking off relevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely concealment of the particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Quite clearly, non-striking-off of the irrelevant limb in the said notice does not convey to the assessee as to which of the two charges it has to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice has been sought to be demonstrated as a reflection of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and in support, reference has been made to the following specific discussion in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra):- 83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- 12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. In the case of Lakhdir Lalji (supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for concealment of particulars of income but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon ble Gujarat Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer. As noted earlier, in the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 the Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off. Quite clearly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of Assessing Officer and there is no clear and crystallised charge being conveyed to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), which has to be met by him. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case, considering the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order alongside his action of non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
