TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1877/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2020 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Alok Malviya ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 13.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- 1. The assessee had voluntarily surrendered the income during the course of assessment proceeding and paid almost taxes accordingly. However, the AO and Appellate Commissioner erred and levied and confirmed the penalty. 2. This was the first time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of different heads. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceeding stating that Hence penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. (para 5 of the assessment order). 5. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer clearly stated that the levy of penalty is for the default of .......... concealed the particulars of his income to the extent of ₹ 60,39,909/- (para 10 of the penalty order). 6. The CIT(A), relying on the various decisions of the Tribunal and the judgements of the Hon ble High Court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court, confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 5 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard. 7. Aggrieved wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.07.2016. On perusal of penalty order, we find the following is the reasons for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act :- 10. .......... concealed the particulars of his income to the extent of ₹ 60,39,909/- 12. 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. 13. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
