9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which penalty is imposed upon him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the charge is vague and therefore, levy of penalty is not warranted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.1927/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : S/Shri Ravindra Davekar Prasad Bhandari For the Revenue : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee without making any adjustment therein. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied an amount of ₹ 12,59,100/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed of ₹ 12,59,100/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being further aggrieved, assessee preferred this appeal before us. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing based his argument referring to grounds submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record valid satisfaction in the assessment order during which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of the assessee as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub section (1) of Section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 4.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Machindra Tukaram Pagire in ITA No.1925 1926/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 2013-14 wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of Assessing Officer/Ld. CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act From the above, it is evident that so far as assessment order is concerned, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings mentioning both limbs of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealing particulars of income‟. However, at the time of levying penalty in the assessment, Assessing Officer has not mentioned any limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existence of ambiguity with reference to applicability of specific limb. Therefore, we are of the opinion that considering the above referred binding judgments such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
