2020 (1) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Court in Samson [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as in New Era Sova Mine [ 2019 (7) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued in the printed form, then, the necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity the nature of the satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra), the notices issued had not struck of the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Benc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT in relation the deletion of penalty, warrants interference. 4. Mr Rao, learned Advocate for the assessee points out that there is absolutely no finding as regards concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He further points out that in the notice issued to the assessee on 30/09/2016, the Deputy Commissioner had not even bothered to strike down the relevant portion of the printed form in order to indicate whether the satisfaction is based upon the concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relies on Commissioner of Income Tax-11 v/s. Shri Samson Perinchery [(017) 392 ITR 4] and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. New E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 33) is perused, it is apparent that the relevant portions have not been struck off. This coupled with the fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order are quite consistent by the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. The contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itself is defe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X