9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR has relied on various decisions to the proposition that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, all these decisions are of non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No. 2174/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. A. T. Panda, Adv For The Respondent : Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, SR. DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 36(2) and section 36(i)(vii) were not fulfilled in this case. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 4,29,361/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued on 28.11.2011 and the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Therefore it is not understood as to under which limb of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty. Sicne the said show cause notice issued u/s 274 did not specify the charge against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 216 ITR 660 the Ld. DR submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere mistake in language used or mere non-striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice u/s 274 of the Act. It was accordingly held that the penalty orders passed by the ITO for assessment years 1968-69 to 1969-70 were perfectly valid and there was no justification for quashing the same on ground of absence of jurisdiction. The Ld. DR also relied on various other decisions to the proposition that mere non-striking off of inappropriate words does not invalidate the penalty proceedings. 7. The Ld. AR in rejoinder submitted that if two views are possible on an issue, the view which is favourable to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co. vs. ITO vide ITA No.4913/Del/2015 for assessment year 2006-07 order dated 18.07.2018 to which both of us parties. We find the Tribunal in the said decision while allowing the additional ground filed by the assessee has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under :- 12. Additional Ground No. (ii) is relating to absence of specific charge pointing out in the notice. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 30.06.2013 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR has relied on various decisions to the proposition that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, all these decisions are of non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
