9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the CIT(A)-6, Pune on 30-12-2016 confirming the penalty of Rs. 3.20 crore imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2004-05. ITA No. 474/PUN/2017: 2. The first ground taken by the assessee is ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trike off any of the two. 4. Before testing the contention of the assessee under law, it is significant to find out the details of additions/disallowance culminating into penalty for determining, if these fall under any one or both of the limbs. On perusal of the penalty order, it can be seen that the penalty has been imposed with reference to disallowance u/s.43B; provisions made for unpaid octr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 vide notice dated 26/12/2006 was separately initiated for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income." The penalty order was eventually passed by noticing that "the assessee has committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, without any reasonable cause." It is thus manifest that the AO not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable portions were not struck off in the penalty notice, the penalty was vitiated. The SLP of the Department against this judgment has recently been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC). 7. In view of the overwhelming legal position, it is clear that where the charge is not properly set out in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
