9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c). This makes the notice vague and defective. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO while recording satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has failed to mention the charge i.e. whether satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is recorded for, 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' or 'concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars'. Thus, no charge as specified u/s. 271(1)(c) has been invoked by the AO while recording satisfaction. Penalty is liable to be deleted on the ground of ambiguity in recording of satisfaction. Ambiguity in mind of the AO regarding charge on which penalty is to be levied u/s. 271(1)(c)of the Act is reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) vide impugned order in ex2 parte proceedings has upheld penalty order. The assessee vide application dated 31.01.2025 has raised additional ground of appeal assailing validity of notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act stating it to be issued in mechanical manner. He placed on record copy of the notice dated 13.03.2014 to substantiate that the irrelevant contents of notice have not been struck off, thus making notice defective. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department strongly opposed the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee at this stage and prayed for upholding the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further pointed that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the charge of 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' or on both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This makes the notice vague and defective. 8. A further perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO while recording satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has failed to mention the charge i.e. whether satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is recorded for, 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' or 'concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars'. Thus, no charge as specified u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been invoked by the AO while recording satisfaction. The penalty is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is identical to the recording of satisfaction as was in AY 2008-09 and the notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 are identical to the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for AY 2008-09. In fact the date of notices in all three subsequent assessment years under appeal is also the same. Except for the change in assessment year there is absolutely no difference in the contents of the notices. The notices are verbatim. On even facts, the findings given while adjudicating appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 would mutatis mutandis apply to the subsequent assessment years under appeal. For parity of reasons, the appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed. 14. To sum up, appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
