TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 271(1)(c) do not apply to the present case. Even for the purpose of levying of penalty, the mechanism provided in the section itself provides for the calculation of penalty which is 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Even on legal issue the assessee has got a very strong case as the penalty has been initiated on both the charges. The penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) dated 09.03.2016 and 22.08.2016 were issued in a mechanical manner without mentioning or stating the specific charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied without any application of mind. Similarly the order of imposing penalty was passed by the AO on both the charges As decided in SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income besides offering the corresponding income to tax. The AO noted that since the assessee has not offered the tax corresponding income, the credit of TDS of ₹ 3,48,120/- can not be allowed and hence rejected the claim of the assessee. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and/or concealment of income. Pertinent to state that no addition of income was made in the assessment order concerning this TDS. Thereafter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied vide order dated 27.09.2016 of ₹ 3,48,120/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income. The AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly claimed by the assessee. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel was that in any case even if the TDS is claimed in the return of income, the credit is only allowed after verification of the TDS as appearing in form 26AS. We find that the only addition made in the assessment order was in respect of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Now the only issue before us is that where there is no addition made to the income of the assessee by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act whether the penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income could be levied. In the present case before us during the assessment proceedings the AO rejected the claim of the assessee for the TDS of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery ITXA No.1310 of 2014 order dated 10.01.2017 (Bom. HC) wherein it has been held that no penalty can be levied where the specific charge was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as the assessee is not confronted and given an opportunity to respond to the charge on which the penalty was levied and the penalty imposed was held to be invalid. We are therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court as stated hereinabove set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Pertinent to state that even on merits no penalty is exigible. Therefore the appeal of the assessee is allowed both on technical as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
