9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Transport Pvt. Ltd. [ 2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. Thus as AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty order whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee we find that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2151/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2020 - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR For the Respondent : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised working of the indexed acquisition cost and revised long-term capital loss which was duly acknowledge by the authorities below. However, penalty proceeding was initiated under section 271(1)(c) by the Ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excess long-term capital loss which was otherwise not entitled. Finally the penalty proceeding was concluded by imposition of penalty of ₹ 4,07,761/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the committed default on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/thereby leading to concealment. The same was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the assessee is before us. 3. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hd/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 and also the matter of Smt. Ushaben Atulbhai Shah in ITA No.197/Ahd/2017 for A.Y 2012-13. 4. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that the order imposing penalty 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 First Appellate Authority, however has not taken into consideration the particular aspect of the matter. The penalty order passed by the Ld. AO states as follows:- 9. In view of the above, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty order that the Learned AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 principles laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above case are squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. We, thus, find force in such submission made by the Ld. Authorised Representative. It is apparent on the face of it and AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty order whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. In that view of the matter, we find that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
