9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Assessee : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, Dated 15.03.2019, for the A.Y. 1996-1997, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessment in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that A.O. has not recorded any satisfaction under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in assessment order for initiating the penalty proceedings. In the notice issued before levy of the penalty Dated 11.09.2017, the A.O. has mentioned the following : "Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. "The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated 11.09.2017 before levy of the penalty against the assessee in which the A.O. has recorded the facts noted above. The language used in the notice therefore clearly show that notice issued by the A.O. for levy of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to be bad in Law as it did not specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act penalty proceedings h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The A.O. merely mentioned at the bottom of the assessment order after computing the income that "penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately." Thus there is a violation of the Law in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
