9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 04-11-2016 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Pune confirming the penalty of Rs. 31,42,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been the proprietor of M/s. Food Land Agro (India) engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the issue, upheld the penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions through Virtual Court and scanned through the relevant material on record. A copy of the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act has been placed in the appeal folder, from which it is discernible that the AO did not strike off either of the two limbs viz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot striking the relevant words vitiates the penalty even though the AO had properly recorded the satisfaction for imposition of penalty in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 248 (Bom) also took similar view that where inapplicable portions were not struck off in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that, the penalty was leviable only on one limb, namely, furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In such a situation, the penalty order gets vitiated. Respectfully following the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
