Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (7) TMI 667

ence to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) is not met by the AO while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Thus, the satisfaction of the AO suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. Without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on lega .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

/- had erred in not appreciating the following important facts that: a) The appellant had filed a revised return and offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide act. b) Offering of the additional income which was remained to be disclosed in the return of income is a voluntary and bona fide offer and it is full and true disclosure of all the facts. c) It was seen from the order that no penalty proceedings has been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of revised return income but has been initiated only on addition of ₹ 1,35,384/- 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in the busine .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

levy of penalty. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We heard both the parties on this legal issue and also perused the material available on record. We find that this is .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||