TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 and respective employees offered the entire income and paid the taxes thereon and repaid refunds issued earlier on the basis of the original returns of income - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 in each case shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since in the instant case, AO has not struck off the inappropriate words in the notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, therefore, the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Rejecting the various explanations given by the respective assessees, the respective Assessing Officers levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The amount of penalty for each of the assessees for the relevant assessment years are as under :- Name of the Assessee A.Y. Penalty (Rs.) Shri KVS Prakasa Rao 2015-16 47,720/- Shri Amit Kumar Prakash 2012-13 12,750/- 2013-14 7,000/- 2014-15 14,200/- Shri Kishore Kumar Pritam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings have been initiated. He submitted that the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Referring to various decisions filed in the Paper Book, he submitted that under identical circumstances various Benches of the Tribunal are cancelling the penalty so levied where the inappropriate words are not struck off from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that on this preliminarily ground itself the order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer should be set-aside and the penalty in each case should be cancelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. We find the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court. Further, the various Benches of the Tribunal following the above decisions are cancelling the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of non-striking of the inappropriate words from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Since in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
