TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2930/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2020 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : Shri M. K. Kulkarni For the Revenue : Shri Deepak Garg ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer clearly stated that the levy of penalty is for the default of ..........concealing the particulars of income by not declaring income of ₹ 2,12,919/- (para 6 of the penalty order). 5. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 6 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted ground. 7. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be setaside on the legal issue relating to the ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer while dealing with the initiation and levy of penalty. Highl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 2,12,919/- 11. The above extracts reveal that the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind while recording the satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind. 13. Therefore, considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
