9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be sustained. See JEETMAL CHORARIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, [2017 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT, KOLKATA]. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1399/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President Shri S. S. Godara, JM For the Assessee : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri I. Jamir, Sr(DR), JCIT, ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) 19, Kolkata dated 28.03.2018 whereby he confirmed the penalty of ₹ 3,45,355/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. As noted at the outset, there is a delay of 15 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the notice of penalty issued by the AO itself being defective, the penalty imposed in pursuance of the same is not sustainable. He has invited our attention of the said notice placed at page no. 1 of the Paper Book to point out that the irrelevant portion having been not struck off by the A.O. in the said notice, the exact charge against the assessee as to whether he concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income was not clear. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the coordinate ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view expressed by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning (supra). We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. We, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty in the present case ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
