9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome - From the notice dated 27/3/2015 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in assessee s case. There is separate provision for penalty in search cases given under the statute after 01.07.2012 that of Section 271AAB of the Act which was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. While dealing with this contention, the CIT(A) has taken the due date that of filing of return of income i.e. 31.08.2007 which is contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty. Therefore the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has voluntarily declared the income and paid taxes thereon. Hence the penalty should be deleted. 4. The above grounds are independent to each other. 5. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or forgo any of the above ground. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income on 31.08.2007 for A.Y. 2007-08 showing a total income of ₹ 11,76,296/-. Thereafter, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 10.12.2012 in the Bakshi Group of cases wherein the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) and CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar). The Ld AR further submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (ITA No.475/2019 vide order dated 02.08.2019) held that notice issued by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. This case relied by the Revenue is not applicable in the present case due to the distinguishing facts. Similarly, the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 will also not be applicable in the present case as the said case is not that of search case. There is separate provision for penalty in search cases given under the statute after 01.07.2012 that of Section 271AAB of the Act which was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. While dealing with this contention, the CIT(A) has taken the due date that of filing of return of income i.e. 31.08.2007 which is contrary to Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the penalty itself is based on incorrect Section. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
