9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we reverse the findings of the lower authorities and quash the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) - Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.1227/Mum./2020 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2022 - SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Naresh Kumar For the Revenue : Shri Rakesh Ranjan ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/10/2019, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in confirming the order of learned assessing officer. It is submitted that the penalty is levied on such addition which was not made in the assessment order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2013. Further the addition account of Reduction of WIP and disallowance of claim of Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was made in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 17.12.2007 in which no penalty was initiated. The said addition has been made in original assessment and the penalty has been initiated and passed the penalty order in Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is totally illegal, wrong and void. It is therefore prayed to your honour to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessment in assessee s case was completed under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act on 31/03/2013, at a total income of Rs.20,57,420, after making following additions: Sr.no. Nature of Addition Amount 1. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.5,970 2. Reduction of WIP Rs.4,43,447 3. Disallowance of claim u/s 80IB(10) 5,03,745 4. On account of sale of car parking 90,976 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.7,36,300. From the perusal of the notice dated 31/03/2013 issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off any of the twin charges i.e., concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v/s CIT, [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom.), wherein the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Court has held that the defect in notice by not striking off the irrelevant matter would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
