TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 10-5-2021 - Kul Bharat, Member (J) For the Appellant : Rohit Tiwari, Adv. For the Respondents : Farhat Khan, Sr. DR ORDER Per Kul Bharat, JM These appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 2009-10 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-24, New Delhi both dated 29.11.2019. 2. Both appeals were taken up together being disposed of by way of a consolidated order. First we take up ITA No. 9545/Del/2019 [Assessment Year 2009-10] wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) vide order dated 28.12.2011. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and added the same into the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had made addition on account of disallowance of interest, addition of unexplained credits, addition on account of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, addition on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and addition on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and as such was aware of the charge. He further submitted at this stage, the assessee should not be permitted to raise such objection. 8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Revenue could not dispute the fact that notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not specify specific charge whether it is against the filing of accurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) amounting ₹ 18,64,850/- initiated on the basis of the Notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act dated 30-12-2010 issued alongwith the assessment order without specifying clear-cut charge of Concealment of Income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is not conformity with the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. (supra), I hereby quash the penalty order as the initiation of penalty is not in accordance with law. Ground Nos. 1, 2 3 of the assessee's appeal are allowed. Ground Nos. 4 5 of the assessee are on merit of levy of penalty as I have quashed the penalty and being not in accordance with law. Hence, rest of this Grounds are not being adjudicated, the same have become academic only. 15. Thus, taking the consistent view, the grounds raised in this appeal are also allowed as the issues are identical in Assessment Year 2009-10. 16. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 10th May, 2021. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
