9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member For the Appellant : S/Shri Gautam Jain Lalit Mohan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri T. Kipgen, CIT (DR) ORDER PER BENCH: This is a group of nine appeals, filed by the different assessees for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2008-09. 2. Before us, at the outset, learned authorized representative submitted that though these appeals are of different assessees and for different assessment years, but the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and, therefore, he has common submissions to make. It was further submitted that the submissions made by him while arguing one appeal would be applicable to other appeals also. 3. Learned Departmental Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee carried the matter before the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax who vide order dated 17th December 2018 in Appeal No.10103/17-18, upheld the levy of penalty imposed by Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved by the order of learned Commissioner of Income- Tax, assessee is in appeal and is challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Before us, learned authorized representative pointed to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2013 which is placed at page 17 of the paper book, wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned have concealed the particulars of your income furnished inaccurate particulars of income . He, therefore, submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. In the present appeal, the show-cause-notice dated 15.03.2013 which has been issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that Assessing Officer has not recorded any clear cut satisfaction as to whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 14. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 15. We further find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan Sheikh (supra) after considering various decisions, cited therein, has held that notice in printed form without deleting inapplicable portions is not valid. The relevant observations of Hon'ble High Court is are under: Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court s decision in Dilip N Shroff on the issue of non application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dlip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan Sheikh (supra) has been stayed/set aside/overruled by higher judicial forum. Further, Revenue has also not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. We, therefore, following the aforesaid decision in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan (supra) are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the levy of penalty levied by Assessing Officer and that was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
