9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Law, the CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,78,024 u/s 271(1)(c) as imposed by the AO. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Law the penalty of Rs. 2,78,024 imposed by the AO is bad in law on account of the reason that neither the assessment order nor the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) and neither the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) clearly specifies the charge for which penalty is levied i.e. whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income since both the charges carry different connotations showing a clear non application of mind on part of the AO while initiating and imposing penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Act. In the assessment order , ld AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that penalty proceeding was initiated for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also passed on 30.03.2017 wherein a penalty of Rs. 278024/- was levied by the ld AO stating that he is satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty for concealing its income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The above order was challenged before the ld CIT(A). He also confirmed the penalty as per para No. 5 of the order. The ld CIT(A) heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 also none of the twin charges were stuck off. In the penalty order also penalty is levied for both the deafults. This ground was also raised as per ground No. 1 of the appeal before the ld CIT(A) however, the ld CIT(A) held that the assessee cannot hide behind the technicalities and rejected the same. We find that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 02.08.2019 in case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Insurance Company Ltd in ITA NO. 475/2019. The Hon'ble High Court held that penalty is not sustainable if none of the twin charges in notice u/s 274 of the Act are cancelled/ stuck off. On this issue, it is clear that the penalty levied by the ld AO is not sustainable in law. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
