9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadow. [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] Since in the instant case the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3239/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Shipra Walia, CA Respondent by : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Form 3CD of Tax audit report as pointed out by the Assessee. Further an ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 10,000/- was also made to cover up the possible leakage in the books of accounts. Pursuant to proceedings under sub section 3 of section 143 of the Act for AY 2014-15, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order dated 22nd December 2016 wherein a sum of ₹ 42,73,159/- was added to fee computation of income. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under the Act on the grounds of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 06 June 06 2017 thereby imposing penalty of ₹ 13,20,406 on the ground of concealment of income . 4. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the penalty proceedings had been initiated. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the penalty order is very clear that the penalty is imposed on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, merely not mentioning the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) will not make the penalty order bad in law. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, Penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 22/12/2016 produced by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. Besides, this it can be seen from the order of the CIT(A) in last para no. 8 that the CIT(A) has modified the limb of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which shows that the Assessing Officer was not specific in the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, by following the legal ratio set out in the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra), we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
