9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 31.3.2010 at a total income of Rs. 2,16,500/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 21.9.2010 in the Shilpi Group of companies and in the case of the assessee also. Therefore, a notice u/s. 153(A) of the Act, dated 11.10.2011 was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 2.11.2011 declaring a net taxable income of Rs. 2,16,500/-. On perusal of the return of income, AO observed that the assessee had shown long term capital gain of Rs. 19,18,379/- on sale of property. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 11.9.2014 has sustained the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has stated that the penalty proceedings ought to fail, because in the assessment order, penalty has been initiated as "penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. It was further stated by him that it nowhere mentions that it is for concealment of income or for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. It was further stated that penalty notice dated 25.3.2013 (sent alongwith the assessment order) mentions both the alleged charges without clearly specifying as to whether it is for concealment or for inaccurate part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CIT vs. Whiteford India Ltd. {2013} 38 taxmann.com 15 (Gujarat). 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the quantum in dispute has been upheld by the Revenue Authority and the penalty in dispute has rightly been levied by the AO, because the Assessee has not offered any explanation on the issue in dispute before the Revenue Authorities and even before this Bench. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith relevant records available with us. I have perused the notice dated 25.3.2013 and 26.8.2013 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, New Delhi for the asstt. Year in dispute for initiating the penalty and dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if finally culminated into an order for concealment of particulars of income. In other words, no proper or reasonable opportunity was given by the AO to meet the charge. The charge itself was stated to be nebulously. I find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Whiteford India Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 (Gujarat) has held that where the show cause notice of penalty is vague or ambiguous, no penalty is sustainable. The penalty notice contains both ingredients of penalty without satisfying the particular contravention for which the proceedings have been initiated. In such circumstances, the penalty as levied by the AO in terms of his order dated 30.9.2013 in ab initio invalid, illegal and must be quashed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
