9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and accordingly quash the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.237/LKW/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2018 - SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY,JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Smt. Manju Thakur, D.R. ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow dated 28/1/2016 on the following grounds of appeal:- I. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Lucknow [here-in-after referred to as the Ld. CIT (A)'s] erred on facts and in law in confirming the initiation and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant was guilty of concealment or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. V. The penalty so levied and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A)'s is bad-in-law, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair-play and thus may kindly be ordered to be deleted. VI. That the Ld. CIT (A)'s did not afford the appellant firm any proper or sufficient opportunity to have its say or make necessary compliance of the reasons relied upon by him in passing the present order and thus the order passed without affording adequate opportunity may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an employee working with Essar Ports Ltd., Mumbai, filed his return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m house property of ₹ 6,54,282/-, the assessee has submitted that due to non awareness of the tax provisions, he unintentionally missed the disclosure of this income in the ITR and since he was of the opinion that if the tax has been deducted at source, the due tax has been paid. However, he was always being diligent in paying due taxes and having no intention of diverting or concealing any of his income and immediately revised his ITR during the course of hearing itself and voluntary paid the due tax along with the interest. The assessee has no intention of diverting or concealing any of its income. 4. Being not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of ₹ 2.50 lakhs levied und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is bad in law, invalid and, therefore, liable to be quashed and the penalty is liable to be deleted. 3. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, placed reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have perused the case records, analysed the facts and circumstances of the case and considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as appearing on page 1 of the paper book shows that notice has been issued in mechanical manner by merely filling up the format of the notice and it is not clear as to whether the penalty is proposed to be imposed for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Similarly, the assessment order dated 31/10/2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act also mentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. 7. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal CIT-1, Vishakapatnam vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) in a recent judgment held as under:- On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
