9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is not sustainable in the eye of law. The penalty is, thus, deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 110/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Smt. AditiSheth, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. DR. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The instant appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee is directed against the order dated 15.11.2017, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad, (in short Ld. CIT(A) ) arising out of the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us. It is a settled principal of law that concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income carry different connotations. In this regard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of CIT vs. SSA S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) where the order passed by the Hon ble High Court quashing the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, holding it bad in law since the same does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceeding has been initiated; copy whereof has also been submitted before us. Even the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.06.2016 levied penalty both for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this is an admitted position that the authorities below has failed to come to a definite finding regarding the charge/guilt committed by the assessee as mandated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act while either issuing of show-cause under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act or at the final stage of issuing penalty both of which suffer from ambiguity in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd.-vs-ACIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 whereby and whereunder the principle of specifying the guilt committed by the assessee in the show-cause under section 271(1)(c) as well as in the penalty order by the AO has been directed to be applied. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and/or may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the IAC was liable to be struck down. The principle laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. At the cost of repetition we observe that the AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty orders as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
