2018 (8) TMI 1204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see at the outset referring to page - 1 of the Paper Book drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words. Therefore, under which limb the penalty has been levied had not been specified. Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vidyanath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT and vice-versa vide ITA No.2078 & 2079/PUN/2014 order dated 24.03.2017 for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09, he submitted that the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Catton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565, has cancelled such ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings and, thereafter, levied penalty of Rs. 5,14,150/- u/s 271(1)(c) which has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 has not been struck off by the Assessing Officer for which the penalty proceedings are initiated and, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 6. I find merit in the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under whic....