9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t struck out. The question as to whether penalty should be imposed in such circumstances is no more res integra by virtue of the full Bench judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Anr. [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that if the charge in the notice u/s 274 is vague i.e. irrelevant charge has not been struck off, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) gets v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming penalty of Rs.99,329/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ). 2. It is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Tribunal on 31-12-2015 was subsequently recalled vide its later order dated 11-05-2022 in M.A.No.22/PUN/2022. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 26-12-2008, whose copy has been placed on record. On perusal of such notice, it is seen that the AO proposed to impose penalty on both the limbs namely; .you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income . Irrelevant limb was not struck out. The questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off of the inapplicable limb, but the penalty has been, in fact, levied for one of the two, such a penalty order gets vitiated. 5. Turning to the facts of extant case, we find from the notice u/s 274 of the Act that the AO did not strike out one of the two limbs, whereas the penalty is only on one addition. Respectfully following the Full Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
