9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice is given, can prepare himself regarding the defence which he would like to take to support his case. This is even enshrined in the principles of natural justice and as has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. - Penalty deleted - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.502 to 505 /LKW/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2019 - Shri A.D Jain, Vice President And Shri T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CA For the Respondent : Shri C.K. Singh, DR ORDER PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals are filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-11, involving common issues. As such, they are being disposed of by this composite order. Details, for conveni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be cancelled. 2. The grievance of the assessees is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to the show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that from a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which the penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not specific, as to whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently argued that it is a settled position of law that if the notice under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and decided that there was therefore no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming the issue in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ward 27(3), Kolkata , (ITAT Kolkata Bench) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 155 wherein it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing out any specific charge for which penalty had been imposed, penalty was liable to be deleted. 5. Sachin Arora vs. ITO and other cases, order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.118/Agra/2015 etc. 6. The settled legal position on the issue, as enshrined in the aforesaid cases, is apparent and we arrive at the considered view that the show cause notice, which has not specified the charge and limb under which the penalty is proposed to be levied, is void ab initio and the consequent penalty imposed on the basis of such notice is, therefore, illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
