TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) TMI 1091 - ITAT INDORE] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 723/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2019 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg Arpit Gaur, CAs For the Revenue : Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 and is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I (in short Ld.CIT(A) ], Indore dated 11.06.2018 which are arising out of the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon'ble ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai, in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Ors. vs. DCIT, as reported in (2012) 74 DTR (Mumbai) (SB) (Trib) 89 and also as per the ratio laid down by many judicial authorities including by the Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench. 5.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO, without considering the settled position of the law that merely because certain additions were made under s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits would not automatically give rise to imposition of penalty under s. 271 (1 )( c). 6.That, without prejudice to the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were issued and the assessee complied with. The assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed determining the total income at ₹ 21,55,298/- making addition of ₹ 2,27,599/-. The Ld. A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions of ₹ 2,27,599/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal against the levy of penalty before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee raising legal issue relying on the decision of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty proceedings has been initiated for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. It was also pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that though the Ld. Assessing Officer has made proper satisfaction on record in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings but in the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, Ld. A.O remained silent by not specifying as for which charge the penalty proceedings have been initiated. 9. To examine this fact we have gone through the impugned notice issued on 06.01.2016 for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. For reference we reproduce below the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice which does not speak about the specific charge leveled against the assessee is valid and tenable in the eyes of law needs to be examined. 11. We find that similar issue came up for adjudication before us in the case of Varad Mehta ITA No.693/Ind/16 dated 06.12.2018 (supra) wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court discussed the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT V/s SSA s Emeralad Meadows (supra) held that on due consideration of the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
