9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The law therefore mandates that there should be existence of any proceedings under the Act so as to give the AO the authority to initiate any penalty proceedings. With this understanding of the law, the Ld. AO was required to have issued penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act on 13.12.2019 only. His issuance of notice u/s 271(1) (c) on 19.12.2019 therefore makes the penalty order dated 01.02.2022 invalid as it is not based upon any lawfully issued notice. Pertinently no proceedings were pending against the assessee on 19.12.2019 when the notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued. We hold that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .M : The appeals as per following details have been filed by the assessee. S.No. ITA No. CIT(A)/NFAC Details DIN No. Date of DIN AY Year Remarks 1 1478/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066451(1) 12. 04. 2024 2012-13 Filed By assessee challenging imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) 2 1479/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066528(1) 12. 04. 2024 2013-14 -do- 3 1480/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066065(1) 12. 04. 2024 2014-15 -do- 4 1481/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066154(1) 12. 04. 2024 2015-16 -do- 5 1482/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066324(1) 12. 04. 2024 2016-17 -do- 6 1483/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064116559(1) 16. 04. 2024 2012-13 Filed By asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 01.02.2022. 4.0 Aggrieved by the above penalty orders dated 01.02.2022 Supra, the assessee has challenged the imposition thereof. Through its grounds of appeal the assessee has primarily argued that the penalty is non-maintainable as the Ld. AO has miscalculated the additions in the OGE and that the specific charge was not mentioned as to whether assessee had concealed its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 5.0 The only issue which arises in the matter is as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been lawfully levied or not. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has primarily harped on the premises that the amount determined by the Ld. AO in the OGE was not incon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that assessee had concealed true particulars of his income. It is however seen that in spite of above facts, the penalty imposed by the Revenue u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non-maintainable in the eyes of law and hence deserves to be quashed. The Ld. DR has submitted vide his paper book dated 13.08.2024 which, inter-alia, contains original penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes of law. 7.0 It is seen that section 271(1)(c) of the Act clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging penalty u/s 271A for AY s 2012-13 to 2016-17. 11.0 As facts for all the years are same, Appeal vide ITA Nos. 1483 for AY-2012-13 is taken as the lead year. Original assessment u/s 143(3) was passed vide order dated 13.12.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO had asked the assessee to provide the details of consultation fees received from out patients, bills, vouchers etc which it was required to maintain within meanings of Rule-6F of IT rules. According to AO the same was done so as to ascertain the impugned receipts were accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. The Ld. AO noted that in spite of given opportunities the assessee failed to produce evidences that it had maintained its records etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he meanings of Rule-6F of IT rules r.w.s 44AA of the Act or not. The counsel confirmed that no books of accounts were maintained per Rule-6F of IT rules r.w.s 44AA of the Act. Section 271A of the Act clearly provides that penalty under the section shall be levied upon an assessee who fails to maintain its books of account and other documents as required u/s 44A r.w. Rule-6A of income tax rules. It further mandates that a penalty of Rs. 25000/- shall be levied for the impugned failure. The failure of the assessee in this case is amply demonstrated from the material on records. In view of the same we are of the view that penalty u/s 271A has been rightly imposed by Ld. AO in this case. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
