9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order of the CIT(A). We hold that the CIT(A) is correct in holding that in such circumstances, the penalty levied is not sustainable. Appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed. - ITA. No. 4998/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2023 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Shri Mukesh Jain, CA Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, dated 14.03.2019 and pertains to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Even if the penalty proceeding are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. The person who is accused in the conditions of mentioned in section 271 should be known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as the section 274 may it clear that the assessee has a right to contest such proceedings. The practice of the Department sending a printing form where all the grounds mention in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences on the assessee not rebutting initial presumption in serious nature and assessee had to pay penalty from 100% to 300% of tax liability. As the said provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard both the parties and perused the record. We note that the ld.CIT(A) has, inter alia, deleted the penalty on the ground that the AO did not strike off the appropriate portion of the notice specifying the charge of the penalty. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. In such circumstances when the relevant limb of penalty notice is not ticked specifying the charge of the assessee, it has been held in various case laws as referred above in ld.CIT(A) s order, the penalty notice is invalid. Hence, on this count only, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We hold that the ld.CIT(A) is correct in holding that in such circumstances, the penalty levied is not sustainable. 5. As regards the merits of the case, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
