9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) penalty was levied. There being no specific charge for levy of penalty, the penalty order is therefore, contrary to law laid downin the case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] Accordingly, impugned penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. For the Department : Shri Anshul, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: The captioned appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.08.2023, pertaining to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. Assessing Officer in Form no. 36 is not appropriate inasmuch as there was no additional evidence which was filed by the respondent before ld. CIT(A) during the course of the appellate proceedings . 3. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee filed its return declaring income at loss of Rs. 6,60,81,456/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a loss of Rs. 3,29,19,728/- after making various additions. In appeal the learned CIT(A) sustained the additions with respect to disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 13,61,120/-; and disallowance of excess material consumption claimed amounting to Rs. 3,16,71,631/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has, inter alia, observed as under: it is concluded and held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income concealment of income 7. The penalty order does not mention the specific charge of default committed by the assessee i.e. whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT others Vs. M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) has observed as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
