9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3778/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2019 - Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER N. S. SAINI AM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- 20 dated 16.03.2018 for the A. Y. 2008-09 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271 of the Act 1961 together with the original copy of the said notice and demonstrated that the observation of the CIT(A) in his order the word concealed particulars has been strike off is factually incorrect. 8. The Ld. DR could not controvert the above submissions of the AR of the assessee by producing any evidence or material before me. 9. In the above background of the case I find that the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Chauhan Prop M/s. Gurucharan Jewellers Vs. ITO reported in 2018 (12) TMI 1386 ITAT Delhi has held as under :- 4. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
