TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, hence the same is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1636/Del./2022 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2023 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-26, New Delhi dated 01.07.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the impugned imposition of penalty of Rs.90,52,387/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act on the basis of the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the imposition of penalty on addition of Rs.1,32,500/- ignoring the fact that no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order for initiating the penalty proceedings on addition of Rs.1,32,500/-. Therefore, the penalty proceedings qua this addition is not sustainable in law as there was no valid initiation of penalty proceedings for this addition. 3. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was levied upon the assessee on account of additions for unexplained cash credit and commission @ 5%. The total penalty levied was Rs.90,52,387/-. 4. Upon assessee s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 9. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA 475/2019 Ors. Vide order dated 02.08.2019 has also taken the same view. Hon ble jurisdictional High Court concluded as under :- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
