9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 raising following grounds of appeal :- "1. The notice issued u's 271 (1) (c) and order imposing penalty under said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. 2. That the learned CIT (A)-XIX, New Delhi has failed to appreciate that no satisfaction was recorded before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) and as such the notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) and the penalty order passed under said section are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the CIT (A)XIX, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in partly upholding the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1) (c). 4. That the information filed and the material available on record are not properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. First we deal with the additional ground. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 05.03.2004 at an income of Rs. 1,78,99,840/-. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by way of issuance of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act read with section 274. Disagreeing with the contentions raised by the assessee, AO reached at the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to decrease its tax liability and thereby levied a penalty of Rs. 59,47,400/- @ 100% u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the same was not so specified in the penalty notice it has been held in the case laws cited before us that mention of the same in the assessment order or penalty order cannot cure fatal short-coming. When the charge has not been specified in the notice, it is an omnibus notice. In such circumstances, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) has held that the penalty order passed is liable to be quashed on account of this defect which is fatal. We further note that Full Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB) has held that no specificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
