TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leviable. AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore direct its deletion. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.2387/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2020 - Shri George Mathan, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM For the Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi For the Revenue : Shri Rajendra Prasad ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 1, Nashik dt.14.07.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual and stated to be engaged in the business of Builders and Developers. Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified and same ought to have been deleted. 3. The assessee further submits that the specific/ exact charge under section 271 (1)(c) has also not been specified by the AO while levying penalty in the order passed u/s 271 (1)(c) and hence, the levy of penalty is bad in law in view of various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune and hence, the penalty levied in the instant case may please be deleted. Without prejudice to ground nos. 2 3, it is submitted as under- 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income in respect of the addition of ₹ 49,98,490/- made by the A.O. on the ground that the value of three flats [held as ,stock in trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the assessee had not concealed any particulars relating to the said income and therefore, there was no reason to levy penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) merely because the said income had inadvertently remained to be offered to tax due to a bona fide mistake on the part of his accountant. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) further erred in appreciating that a. The assessee had voluntarily noticed the above mistake before being detected by the A.O. in the course of asst. proceedings and this fact was duly clarified before the CIT(A) along with the trail of questionnaire issued by the A.O. and submissions filed by the assessee prior to voluntarily offering the above amount to tax and thus, the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the income was offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he printed form to indicate whether the satisfaction for penalty is for concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He therefore relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts Recreation Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2020) 113 Taxmann.com 574 submitted that no penalty is leviable. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the A.O has initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court in Samson Pereinchery (supra) as well as in New Era Sova Mine (supra) has held that the notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued in the printed form, then, the necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity the nature of the satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra), the notices issued had not struck of the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Bench concluded that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
