9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of specifying the guilt committed by the assessee in the show-cause under section 271(1)(c) as well as in the penalty order by the AO has been directed to be applied. AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty orders as to whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No such definite finding is reflecting from the orders impugned before us. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eye of law. The penalty is, thus, deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 98/RJT/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 which was, in turn, confirmed by the first appellate authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the penalty proceeding does not fulfill the criteria laid down u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Specific charge, though requires to be mentioned in the show-cause notice as to whether the guilty for concealment of income or for inaccurate particulars of income has been committed by the assessee as held by different High Courts has not been specifically alleged. Furthermore, the Learned AO while imposing penalty mentioned both the limbs being furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned AR. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the order of penalty before us. On the contrary the Learned DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that the order imposing penalty admittedly has not specified the guilt committed by the assessee for such penalty as already discussed by us while dealing with facts of the case hereinabove. The particular lacuna found in the proceeding more particularly in the order imposing penalty are as follows: The show-cause notice dated 27.08.2015 was issued appearing at Page 4 of the Paper Book filed before us does not sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither been considered even at the appellate stage by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, this is an admitted position that the authorities below has failed to come to a definite finding regarding the charge/guilt committed by the assessee as mandated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act while either issuing of show-cause under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act or at the final stage of issuing penalty both of which suffer from ambiguity in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd.-vs-ACIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 whereby and whereunder the principle of specifying the guilt committed by the assessee in the show-cause under section 271(1)(c) as well as in the penalty order by the AO has been directed to be appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was in this respect the Bench observed that Now the language of and/or may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the IAC was liable to be struck down. The principle laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above case is squarely applicable to the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
