9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j Garg ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Pune dated 28.12.2018 for the assessment year 2006-07 as per grounds of appeal on record. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is with regard to imposition of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of law if the charge is not specific then the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. That in support of his contentions, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154 of 2014 and the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case and have given considerable thought to the judicial pronouncements placed before us. We observe that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) relied on the decision of Smt. Kaushalya (supra.) which is an earlier decision and have confirmed the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the law of the land as on date should definitely be the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge is vague and therefore, levy of penalty is not warranted. In the totality of facts and circumstances, when notice of penalty is not specific about the charge, when penalty order itself is not specific about the exact limb/charge, both are vague in nature. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty from the hands of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
