9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings but while issuing notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 AO has mentioned no specific charge in the notice whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. AO has not struck of the inapplicable words in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271. In these facts, admittedly the issue is covered by the decision of Babuji Jacob [ 2020 (12) TMI 574 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein considering the decision cited in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. [ 2018 (5) TMI 259 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] decided the issue in favor of assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri S.R. Raghu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional income of Rs. 1,48,58,844/-. The assessment was completed accepting the declaration of income of Rs. 1,67,66,600/-, which includes a sum of Rs. 3,04,580/- being 30% of Rs. 10,15,265/- which was disallowed under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 51,80,200/- being 100% of the tax on the alleged concealed trading income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee made submission that the levy of penalty is invalid as the AO has not specified in the notice whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of Income t the AO should have specifically used the word and between the words Concealment of Income . filing inaccurate particulars of income in the penalty notice. This issue goes to the root of initiation of penalty. Therefore, respectfully following Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra), it is held that the penalty u/s271(1) (c) is not maintainable. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty y/s 271(1) (c). 7.3.5 The Hon'ble ITAT while passing the above order, has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO as reported in (2021]124taxmann.com 363 [Madras], and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the AO has mentioned no specific charge in the notice whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has not struck of the inapplicable words in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. In these facts, admittedly the issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO reported in [2021] 124 taxmann.com 363 (Madras), wherein Hon ble High Court considering the decision cited by Revenue of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 403 ITR 407 (Mad) decided the issue in favor of assessee. Hence, the issue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
