9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been initiated. It is the negligence of the Ld. A.O in not making proper specific charge in the notice u/s 274 about the addition for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged addition goes under the limb of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . Merely issuing notice in general proforma will negate the very purpose of natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N Shraf [ 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] that the quasicriminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.161/Ind/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Girish Agrawal ,CA For the Revenue : Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2 (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 8,21,000/-. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty can be initiated either for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the Ld.A.O has not recorded any charge on the assessee, as to whether penalty is to be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income . Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Kulwant Singh Bhatia ITA No.9 of 2018 dated 9.5.2018, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld.A.O has failed in comply the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by initiating the penalty proceedings with no specific charge. Reliance was also placed on Indore Tribunal decision in the case of Varad Mehta ITA No.693/Ind/16 dated 06.12.2018. 6. Per contra Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issues raised by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has not been mentioned. Now whether such type of notice which does not speak about the specific charge leveled against the assessee is valid and tenable in the eyes of law needs to be examined. 10. We find that similar legal issue came up for adjudication before us in the case of Varad Mehta ITA No.693/Ind/16 dated 06.12.2018 (supra) wherein we decided the issue in favour of the assessee, relying on the judgment in case of Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) observing as follows; 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issues raised by the assessee revolves around the levy of penalty at ₹ 16,00,000/- levied by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) on the addition of ₹ 51,00,000/- from undisclosed sources for purchase of immovable properties. Perusal of records shows that the assessee remaining negligent and non compliant to various opportunities provided by the Ld. A.O as well as Ld.CIT(A) during the course of penalty proceedings as well as appellate proceedings towards the levy of penalty. 12. Now the assessee is in appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CIT V/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT V/s SSA s Emeralad Meadows (supra) held that on due consideration of the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not specify the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that Ld. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty enforced by the authority . 15. Similarly in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Ginning Factory, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically mention the ground in section 271(1)(c) whether concealment of income or for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. Sending printed form where all ground of section 271(1)(c ) would not mentioned the specific requirement of law. Assessee should know the grounds on which he has charged specific otherwise opportunities of natural justice denied. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assesssee in another limb is ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
