AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice issued u/s 274 red with u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated September, 11, 1998 does not mention the specific charge for which penalty proceedings are initiated hence the said notice and the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction." GROUNDS OF APPEAL The Appellant respectfully submits: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) in levying penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the alleged concealment of particulars of income on the part of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues referred to hereunder, where the penalties had been calculated with reference to 100....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case and law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c) to the extent of Rs. 1,60,47,526/-." 3. The assessee is a foreign banking company and non-resident having its head office at Tokyo, Japan. The assessee Company has its branches in India at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta etc. These branches of the assessee constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the Indo-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Total income of the assessee is taxable in India at the income tax rate prescribed by the Annual Finance Act for a Company other than a domestic company which is 55% for the Assessment Year 1995-96 and no surcharge. The return of income f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notice was submitted to be set aside by the Ld. AR. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the assessee's own case by the Tribunal in ITA No. 6093 & 6614/Mum/ 2003 order dated 6/12/2018 and submitted that the appeal of the assessee was allowed and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR during the course of hearing relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2018- TIOL-813-H.C-Mad IT. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the show cause notice there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ords in the said notice have not been struck off and it is a printed notice. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co. vs. ITO vide ITA No.4913/Del/2015 for assessment year 2006-07 order dated 18.07.2018 to which both of us parties. We find the Tribunal in the said decision while allowing the additional ground filed by the assessee has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under :- "12. Additional Ground No. (ii) is relating to absence of specific charge pointing out in the notice. It is pertinent to n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed." Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to b....