TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Issue involved in both these appeals is one and the same as such it is convenient to dispose of these two appeals by way of a common order, by taking the facts relevant for the assessment year 2002-03. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a form deriving its income in the business of manufacturing and retailing of sweets and namkeens. Consequent to the Survey operations conducted at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied a penalty of Rs. 96,494/-. In appeal, by way of impugned order, the learned CIT(A), confirmed the same. Hence the assessee is before us in appeal challenging the penalty order. 2. It is the argument of the Ld. AR is that the penalty order is bad under law because assessment order while initiating the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not justified in levying the penalty. Lastly he submitted that the penalty order is barred by limitation. Ld. ADR vehemently relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 3. Now coming to the 1st argument that the penalty order is bad under law for non-specifying the charge in as much as it does not specify under which limb of section 271 (1) (c) of the acts the action was taken, is concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate parti....