TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of M/s SSA’S Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT]that the very initiation of penalty proceedings is bad in law since the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings has been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.6286/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Ashish Goel, CA For the Respondent : Shri B. R. Mishra, Sr.DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be filed before the Tribunal in time for which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing of the appeal and has not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, merely because the addition has been sustained partly by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal due to delay in filing of the appeal penalty cannot be levied. In his alternate argument, ld. counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued for penalty and submitted that inappropriate words have not been struck off. Therefore, the notice itself is defective and the penalty cannot be sustained. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Anr. vs. M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra) I find some force in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that at least penalty should be deleted in the instant case. 10. Even otherwise also a perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 shows that the Assessing Officer has not struck off the improper words. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer at para 8.8 has initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The order u/s 271(1)(c) also shows that the penalty has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 shows that the Assessing Officer has not struck off the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
