2019 (2) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) of the Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to "The Act") for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee filed his return of income on 27.05.2011 through Electronic Media declaring total income at Rs. 1,49,571/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Upon scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) dated 17.08.2012 was served. The assessment was finalized on 30.12.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 8,06,200/- making an addition of Rs. 6,56,629/- to the total income of the assessee on certain counts. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated by a notice u/s 274 dated 17.11.2011 directing the assessee to show-cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng to the Learned Advocate, the show-cause notice suffers from vagueness or ambiguity and the notice prejudiced the cause of the assessee and therefore the imposition of penalty is invalid. The Learned AO has neither specified the alleged guilt committed by the assessee by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income which is nothing but non-application of mind, according to the Learned AR. On this particular issue he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip and Shrof-vs- JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) where it was held while issuing the notice for initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO should apply mind and make it clear as to whether he has proceeded on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Thus insofar as final order of penalty was concerned, the Assessing Officer was clear and penalty was imposed for concealing particulars of income. In light of this, we may peruse the decision of this Court in case of Manu Engineering Works (supra). In the said decisio....