TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.12.2016, is also vague as it states that Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Same is the case with the penalty order, dated 23.06.2017, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as it also does not state under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty has been levied. Thus the penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of defect in the penalty notice - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5828/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2022 - Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Sameer Dalal (AR) For the Appellant/Department : Shri T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) of the Act has been levied, is not specified and both the limbs of charge are mentioned there that is, concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 1.3 The Appellant submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no such penalty is livable. 1.4 The Appellant prays that penalty of ₹ 2,90,287/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act be cancelled. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Appellant is an individual who had salary income, income from house property, business income from trading activity, as well as income from other sources during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and filed return of income which was picked up for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued under Section 271 read with 274 of the Act without deleting or striking off inapplicable part. 6. We have heard the parties, perused the record and considered legal position. The full Bench of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT (supra) has held that a mere defect in the notice - not striking off the irrelevant matter, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty has been levied. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid penalty order reads as under: 6. In view of the above discussion, the contentions of the assessee are not accepted and it is held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income within the meaning of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and explanation offered by him is not bonafide and is incorrect and false on facts. Therefore, the assessee is held liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income of ₹ 9,39,442/- (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the above, Ground No. 1.1, 1.2.c. and 1.4 are allowed following the Full Bench decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
