TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 5114/DEL/2017 I.T.A. No. 5115/DEL/2017 I.T.A. No. 5116/DEL/2017 I.T.A. No. 5117/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : SH. P. C Yadav, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/06/2017 passed by CIT(A)-24, New Delhi for assessment year 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 2010-11 respectively. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- I.T.A. No. 5114/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2006-07) 1. That the Ld. GIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 9,08,820/-,imposed by the AO., invoking the provisions of sec 271(1)( c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 9,08,820/-,without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducted in Rock land Group as a result of which proceedings u/s 153A were initiated against the assessee and assessment u/s 153A was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 20/6/2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made following additions:- A.Y quantum Nature of addition and position after CIT(A) order Remarks 2006-07 (27,00,000/-) Additional Income disclosed before Settlement Commission Assessment were under section 153A and nothing was found in search 2008-09(2,00,000/-) Additional Income disclosed before Settlement Commission 2009-10(1,00,000/-) Additional Income disclosed before Settlement Commission 2010-11(1,00,000/-) Additional Income disclosed before Settlement Commission Notice dated 20/06/2014 u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee relating to penalty. In the meanwhile, additions made in quantum proceedings we have he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner and held that in case the Assessing Officer would of the view that both charges are applicable then he should use the expression and between the charge of concealment and inaccurate particulars. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of HPCL vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 554 555/Del/2017. The Ld. AR submitted that the perusal of the penalty notice and order would show that there was no specific charge against the assessee and hence penalty cannot be sustained. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Akhil Meditech and Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. wherein the facts are similar and the assessee therein was also assessed due to the search action in Rockland Group has quashed the proceedings of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty levied is not sustainable as the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty on some other charge and levied on some other charge. It is settled position of law that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are two separate things and the Assessing Officer has to specify the charge under which he is going to impose penalty on the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeals of the assessee may be allowed. 6. The Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
