9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)'), dated 30.11.2023, for assessment year 2012-13 confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further pointed that the assessee's failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). 4. Both sides heard. The assessee by way of additional ground of appeal has assailed validity of penalty notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act as the same has been issued in a mechanical manner. The additional ground raised by the assessee vide app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for adjudication. The notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act which is subject matter of dispute is reproduced herein under: 6. A bare perusal of above notice shows that the same is omnibus notice in a preprinted performa. Though, the AO has tick marked in the notice, however, it is not clearly emanating from the notice as to whether penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied on the charge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. As pointed earlier, ambiguity in mind of the AO regarding charge on which penalty is to be levied u/s. 271(1)(c)of the Act is reflected in notice as well. The AO has not struck off irrelevant matter in the notice issued in pre printed performa. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT reported as 125 taxmann.com 253 has held that where omnibus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
