9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by striking off the inappropriate words. On a reading of satisfaction recorded in the assessment order of the Assessing Officer and the observations in the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) it is evident that the AO himself was not sure what is the exact offence committed by the assessee. Thus ambiguity in the satisfaction recorded as well as the reasons on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty coupled with the fact that the show-cause-notice issued in the printed format does not specify the exact charge for which penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed, it has to be held that the order imposing penalty is not valid. Appeal of assessee allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was determined at Rs.31,64,971 and after adjusting the brought forward losses of earlier years, the total income was determined at nil. However, based on the disallowance of expenditure claimed and the addition made on account of salary expenses not recorded in the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In course of penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that out of the addition of Rs.82,28,800, learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained addition to the extent of Rs.20,95,200 and deleted the balance amount. Thus, on the addition sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) amounting to Rs.20,95,200, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is the unaccounted expenditure of Rs.82,28,800. 8. Undisputedly, the aforesaid addition has been substantially scaled down to Rs.20,95,200 by the first appellate authority. Now, coming to the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order, it is observed that Assessing Officer has stated that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income by concealing the true particulars of his income. Whereas, in the show-cause-notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 31.12.2010, the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge for which he intended to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by striking off the inappropriate words. Mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
