TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is clear that there was ambiguity in the mind of A.O so that he has not struck off the inappropriate limb of the provision and has retained both the limbs i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income while imposing penalty. This exercise is not at all warranted in the realm of income-tax proceedings. The jurisdictional High court in the case Shri Samson Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that the A.O is under obligation to satisfy the appropriate limb of section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation of levy of penalty. We have also observed that the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is ambiguous and that the A.O has not arrived at satisfaction as to whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500/- levied by the ld. A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inspite of the fact that the show cause notice was issued without specifying extract limb or charge for which the penalty was initiated and levied. Thus, the impugned penalty levied being bad in law may please be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 17,10,500/- levied by the ld. A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in spite of the fact that the ld. A.O initiated the penalty by applying both the limbs i.e furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the particulars of income. Thus, he failed to specify the exact limb under which the penalty is initiated. Hence, the impugned penalty levied being bad in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as for concealment of income. That further in the penalty order at para 6 again, the A.O observed as follows: From the above facts, and the findings of the A.O it is clearly established that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income at Rs. 60,24,284/- and made himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). It is also fact that if the case had not been selected for scrutiny, this income would have been escaped. 4. Therefore, conclusively, the A.O in the entire process of initiation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was ambiguous and did not have any clarity of mind so as to under which limb of the provision, he intend to impose penalty on the assessee. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the A.O has arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 No. _____ dated ______ Have concealed the particulars of your income or --------- furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.00 AM/PM on 15- 04-2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made u/s 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made u/s 271(1)(c). Sd/- (SEAL) of I.T.O. Ward 1, Ahmednagar (H.B. Prkhe) Income-tax Officer Ahmednagar 5. The Hon‟ble Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion as regards defect in the notice under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act resulting in vitiating the penalty proceedings, we find ourselves bound by the answers given by the Full Bench. It would not be permissible for us to disregard this aspect and take a different view of the matter. Accordingly substantial question of law no. III is answered by holding that since the show cause notice dated 12-2-2008 does not indicate whether there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of such income, the same would vitiate the penalty proceedings. 6. In view of the above deliberation on this issue without going into merits of the case of the assessee, on this legal ground itself, we set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
