TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in assessee's case. Thus, there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 - See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] 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 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. Notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. - Decided in favour of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has filed its Income Tax Return on dated 30/09/2010 through E-filing showing total income of ₹ 2,29,830/-. The assessment was completed on income of ₹ 81,29,830/- was made at ₹ 79,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated and show Cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) were issued on 30.03.2013. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 16/2/2015 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on quantum. Further show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) were issued on 14/7/2015 and 25.02.2015. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the notices dated 14/07/2013, 14/7/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty order bad in law. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, Penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 30/03/2013 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;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 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. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
