9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer ("AO") imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,95,880. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- "The appellant is RIYAS NELLIYOTE, Nelliyote House, Po:Paleri, Kuttiadi-673 508, and in regard to assessment year 2015-16, the Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kozhikode, has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,95,880/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as per order dt.25.04.2019. 2. The appellant went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and as per order in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066407075(1) dt.04.07.2024, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The NOTICE issued by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law since it has not struck off the irrelevant portion whether penalty proceedings has been initiated for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". The CIT(A) however rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that the defect in the notice is curable defect as per the provisions of sec.292B of the Act. In support of this conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR placed on record copy of the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act, copy of the assessment order where penalty proceedings have been initiated, etc. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the particular ground on which the Revenue was proceeding against the assessee for the imposition of the penalty. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 cannot be legally sustained." 9. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessment order and the notice issued u/s. 274 is vague and is not clear under which limb the penalty has been initiated. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shri Ambady Krishna Menon (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 274 is bad in law and consequentially the order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
