2018 (10) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the Assessee : Sanjeev Anwar, Advocate ORDER S. S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member).- 1. This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated September 13, 2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarpur for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein he deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant portion of which reproduced herein below : I have considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the authorised representative of the appellant, the Board's instruction, Reserve Bank of India circular and the decisions relied upon by the appellant and the Assessing Officer. In the assessment, certain expenses have been disallowe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the same. 2. The learned authorised representative submits that the issue is covered by the order dated April 12, 2017 of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hindustan Live Stock Agency v. Asst. CIT and argued that this Tribunal cancelled the penalty for not striking the relevant portion in the notice issued under section 274 of the Act to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned authorised representative placed reliance on paragraph No. 4 of the order of the Tribunal and referred to page No. 1 of the paper book and argued that the Assessing Officer did not strike the relevant portion and therefore it is a defective notice in which the penalty cannot be imposed. 3. The learned Departmental repr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. So, the Tribunal held that the said notice without specifying the fault under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the notice is bad in law, which order of the Tribunal was upheld by the honourable Karnataka High Court and later on the honourable Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in CC No. 11485 of 2016 vide order dated August 5, 23016. Therefore according to the learned counsel, since the notice itself is defective the subsequent penalty proceeding gets vitiated and so, the penalty is invalid in the eye of law and has to be cancelled. 3. On the other h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X