TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice 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 [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery (Bom-HC) [ 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 opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21.03.2014 without striking off inappropriate or redundant part of the notice. In other words, the notice was issued in a standard format for concealment of particulars or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, the penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 23.09.2014 by invoking Explanation 1 and 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the submissions and contentions raised during the appellate proceedings and hence the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 23.09.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 22.03.2019 ACIT vs. BhushanKamalnayanVora [2017] 60 ITR(T) 82 (Mumbai -Trib.) Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA 1596 1597 /M/2014 dated 01.09.2017 Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT - ITA No. 1261/Mum/201 1 dated 17.05.2017 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Mumbai Trib.) dated 28.04.2017 Prince Consultancy (P.) Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the notice 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 the penalty order would be bad in law as the assessee was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
