TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able opportunity to respond and deal with the particular charge on which the penalty was levied. In our view, the penalty order in such a scenario is clearly bad in law and can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is clearly supported by the decision relied upon by the assessee as stated hereinabove in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1458 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where the AO has failed to state particularly the one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied then the penalty order would be bad in law as the assessee was not given proper opportunity to respond to the charge on which the penalty was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the profit of ₹ 24,90,922/- on sale of shares as business income as against the short term capital gain shown by the assessee besides disallowance of ₹ 32,922/- under section 14A read with rule 8D2(iii). The AO initiated the penalty proceedings as mentioned in page 6 of the assessment order for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also notice dated 06.12.2010 was issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act without mentioning or stating the particular limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. Finally, the penalty was levied in the penalty order dated 29.03.2014 for concealment of income as stated in page 6 of the penalty order. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing case laws: CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC) 73 taxmann.com 248 dated 5.8.2016 Mrs. Piedade Perinchery (BomHC) ITANo. 1310 of 2014 dated 10.01.2017 Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT (Bom HC ) 392 ITR 4 dated 05.01.2017 CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (Kar HC) 73 taxmann.com 241 dated 23. 11. 20 15 CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) K.M. Bhatia vs. CIT 62 TAXMAN 430 (GUJ.) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (GUJ.) Pr.CITvs.BaisettyRevathi(APHC)ITANo684of2016datedl3.7.2017 Shri S. Narendrakumar Co. vs. ACIT- ITA No.7334/Mum/2016 dated 22.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.02.2018 Parinee Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd 7 SOT 181 (Mum ITAT) M/s Superb Royal Travels and Tours Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO - ITA No.: 4147/Mum/2012 DCIT vs. JMD Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 124ITD 223 (Delhi ITAT) Further, the Ld. A.R. submitted that no penalty is attracted under section 271(1)(c) for the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act as the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the annual accounts filed before the revenue authorities. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Pr. CIT vs. Gruh Finance Ltd. (2018) 100 taxman.com 104 SC and CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 2. RL Traders vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT) 3. CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (191 taxman 179 (Delhi)/(2010) 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/(2010) 233 CTR 465 4. CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd. (184 Taxman 8 (SC)/ (2009) 315 ITR 460 (SC)/(2009) 222 CTR 213 5. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) LTd. (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/(2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC)/(2008) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty on one limb and imposing penalty finally on the other limb is clear cut in violation of principle of natural justice as the assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity to respond and deal with the particular charge on which the penalty was levied. In our view, the penalty order in such a scenario is clearly bad in law and can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is clearly supported by the decision relied upon by the assessee as stated hereinabove in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery (Bom-HC) (supra) the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that where the AO has failed to state particularly the one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied then t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
