9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 19.12.2017 by making various additions/disallowances. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 29.03.2022 wherein penalty of Rs. 45,85,083/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submit that at the time of initiation of the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice was issued to the assessee vide notice dated 26/12/2017. The said notice is reproduced as under: "To 26/12/2017 M/s C & S Electric Ltd. 222, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Ltd. vs. PCIT [2023] 157 Taxmann.com 584 (Delhi) -Shyam Sunder Jindal vs. PCIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 625 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income and penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the order of levy of penalty deserves to be upheld and merely for not struck off the limb in the penalty notice, such order should not be canceled. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the notice issued for initiation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without strik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
