AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4:- "That in the absence of any specific charge, the initiation of levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed." 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that no specific allegation as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 31.03.2010 issued by him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act filed with the Paper Book at page no. 81 which clearly shows that the same is the standard format of the notice and AO has just ticked on the option of concealment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5....................." 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 31.03.2010, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. We are of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does 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 particulars. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee." iii) ITAT, 'A' Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 5788 to 5790/Del/2014 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the Notice dated 26.3.2013 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at 11.30 AM on 26/04/2013 and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that ".....you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) 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 particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee." 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue." iv) ITAT, 'D' Bench, New Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder:- "5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected." 8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the AO has passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) 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 particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manju....