9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case and proposition of law as emerging from cited decisions above cancelled all the penalty orders.
As in the penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.e.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the inapplicable words were not struck off, the levy of penalty therefore is vitiated and is held bad in law. Decoded in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one has appeared on behalf of assessee, though, the notice of hearing have been duly served on the given address. 3. Submissions of the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue were duly considered and the documents produced have been perused while taking the matter as heard. 4. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 26/07/2022, however, this appeal is filed on 26/09/2022, so there is only one day delay in filing this appeal. The delay is not inordinate, therefore, we condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not invalidate the whole penalty order. 8. Before us, none has appeared on behalf of assessee but filed a written submission in support of the grounds of appeal. In the written submission, it has claimed that during assessment proceedings u/s 153A, all the details were provided to the ld. AO and no adverse inference was drawn while accepting the return of income. No fact has been brought on record to prove that any concealment has been made or inaccurate particulars have been submitted. The assessee had filed written submission along with copy of penalty notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is further submitted that the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act for the initiation of penalty by the ld. AO is defective in as mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er taking note of the facts of the case and proposition of law as emerging from cited decisions above cancelled all the penalty orders. The operative part of the appeal is reproduced as below for ready reference:- "4. We observe from the notices above that the limb on which the penalty has been imposed is not specified. The inappropriate portion of the notice has not been struck off. It is discernible that the AO had not striked off either of the two limbs i.e. concealment of the particulars of income; and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Full bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik vs. Dy. CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom.) considered this very issue. Answering the question in affirmative, the full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice served on the assessee must clearly and unambiguously specify the charge on which the Department proposes to levy the penalty so that the assessee can be ready with his defence and prepare his case and submissions accordingly. 7. In view thereof, even without going into the merits of the extant cases only on the very legal premise that in the penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.e.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the inapplicable words were not struck off, the levy of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
