TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty for A.Y. 1996-1997 set aside due to flawed proceedings under section 271(1)(c) - Importance of specifying grounds</h1> <h3>Shri Raj Kumar Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-62 (2), New Delhi.</h3> Shri Raj Kumar Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-62 (2), New Delhi. - TMI Issues:Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without specifying the grounds for penalty initiation.Analysis:The appeal was against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi, challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 1996-1997. The assessment was completed with an addition of &8377; 35,50,000/- from loans taken from relatives and friends. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings separately without specifying the grounds in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal.The Assessee contended that the A.O. did not record any satisfaction under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order for initiating the penalty proceedings. The notice issued did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Citing relevant case laws, the Assessee argued that the penalty cannot be levied without clear grounds for initiation.The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice issued by the A.O. did not specify the grounds for initiating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It was held that the notice was bad in law as it did not clarify whether the penalty was for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to lack of specificity in the notice and absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty was deemed not leviable, and the Orders of the authorities below were set aside, canceling the penalty.In light of the above discussion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, emphasizing the importance of clearly specifying the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The judgment highlighted the necessity for proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements in penalty imposition cases to ensure fairness and compliance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
