2017 (2) TMI 1272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has mentioned assessment year as 2007-08. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide corrigendum dated 09-12-2015 has rectified the mistake. Thus, assessment year 2007-08 mentioned in impugned order be read as assessment year 2006-07. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of sale of Kinetic Vehicles under the name and style of M/s. Anand Kinetics. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31-10-2006 declaring taxable income of Rs. 7,99,310/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty in notice and the reason for levying penalty in the order. The ld. AR further submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery in Income Tax Appeal No. 1154 of 2014 decided on 05-01-2017 has held that where the notice fails to specify charge for levy of penalty, the same shall be invalid and hence no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand Shri Hitendra Ninawe representing the Department vehemently supported the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the levy of penalty. The ld. DR prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee and confirming the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. We have heard the submissions made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice that the Assessing Officer is not clear as to under what charge penalty has to be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The notice is vague as it fails to clearly spell out the charge for levy of penalty. A further examination of the records show that the observations of the Assessing Officer are inconsistent while recording satisfaction and at the time of passing of the penalty order. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer is incoherent in reasoning for recording satisfaction and in passing the order levying penalty. 7. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery (supra) reiterating the view of Hon'ble Karnataka Hi....