TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed to be levied thereby depriving the assessee to respond to the charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. The case is squarely covered by the decision of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 VERSUS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] which provides that failure on the part of the AO to state the charge on which the penalty was proposed to be levied would render the penalty order as invalid and ab initio and thus penalty cannot be sustained. - Appeal of assessee is allowed. - ITA Nos. 1925 & 1926/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2019 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM For the Appellant : S/Shri Prasad Bhandari Ravindra Parekar For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed of ₹ 8,35,000/-u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being further aggrieved, assessee preferred this appeal before us. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing based his argument referring to grounds submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record valid satisfaction in the assessment order during which the penalty proceedings were initiated. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided in explanation below section 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, it is liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. I am therefore satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act From the above, it is evident that so far as assessment order is concerned, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings mentioning both limbs of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealing particulars of income‟. However, at the time of levying penalty in the assessment, Assessing Officer has not mentioned any limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existence of ambiguity with reference to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge on which penalty is imposed upon him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the charge is vague and therefore, levy of penalty is not warranted. Taking totality of facts and legal scenario into consideration, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1925/PUN/2017 is allowed. ITA No.1926/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 11. Both the parties herein are unanimous in stating that except the figure, facts and circumstances in this case and submissions of both the parties are identical to ITA No.1925/PUN/2017. In this case also, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
