TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble.The proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.190/CTK/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2019 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri C.Parida, AR For the Revenue : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 4.5.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12 confirming the penalty of ₹ 3,92,709/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 30.9.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in a particular manner or reduce it into writing and the scope of section 271(1)(c) has been elaborately discussed in the said decision of Hon ble Supreme Court. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty and hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the rival submissions, and perused the record of the case. Undisputedly, penalty of ₹ 3,92,709/- has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act primarily on the ground of cash deposit of ₹ 33,02,620/- deposited in the bank by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the addition of ₹ 11,45,051/- has been confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. It is also not in dispute that the penalty has been imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961 Dated : 29.3.2014 To Sujit Kumar Behera, Plot Not. A/356, Sahied Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2011-12 it appears to me that you:- have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/14392) of the income tax Act, 1961. . You are hereby requested to appear before me on dtd.20.5.2014 at 12.30 PM and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also observed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act dated 29.3.2014 for assessment year 2011-12 without mentioning that whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, I am of the considered view that when the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against him as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on his part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. In view of above, I hold that the proceedings show a nonapplication of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. Therefore, I delete the penalty of ₹ 3,92,709/- imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
