TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct as follows . Thus, inspite of giving observation in the assessment order that there is concealment of income. Notice issued and the penalty order makes it ambiguous as to under which limb, the penalty order has been passed. Para 7 of the order of Ld. FAA shows that this argument was specially raised and relevant precedents were cited but Ld. CIT(A) has failed to make any discussion on this aspect - Following the settled proposition of law recognized in Pr. CIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd.[ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that where there is failure on the part of the AO to indicate and specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated, the penalty order cannot be sustained. The groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by confirming the penalty order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 14,35,680/-, without appreciating the fact that the AO has not made any distinction between the two charges i.e. concealment of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income thus violated the rules laid down by the Honorable Karnataka High Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. (Karnataka), where in it was held that the notices under challenge are not in conformity with the law and they are void ab initio. Accordingly the said notices and all proceedings based thereon, culminating in the impugned order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the act must be made on the basis of each tool adopted by the CIT (Appeal) on the amount of addition confirmed and not at all on the total amount confirmed in the quantum of appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. The basic argument of the Ld. AR of the Assessee was that the penalty proceeding notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act is defective as same does not disclose as to if the penalty has been levied for concealment of the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this context judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2019) 108 Taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) was relied. On merit it was also submitted that as assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd decided case laws, I hold that the Assessee had concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and is liable for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as follows . Thus, inspite of giving observation in the assessment order that there is concealment of income. The Notice issued and the penalty order makes it ambiguous as to under which limb, the penalty order has been passed. Para 7 of the order of Ld. FAA shows that this argument was specially raised and relevant precedents were cited but Ld. CIT(A) has failed to make any discussion on this aspect. Thus, following the settled proposition of law recognized in Pr. CIT Vs. Sahara Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) that where there is failure on the part of the AO to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
