TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2017 of the CIT(A)- 20, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs. 62,798/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... outset filed a number of decisions of the Tribunal wherein under identical circumstances the addition made on account of bogus purchases have been completely deleted. He submitted that due to some mistake on the part of the assessee, the appeal could not be filed before the Tribunal in time for which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing of the appeal and has not decided the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court where it has been held that the notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceeding had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He accordingly submitted that on either count the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition is also same as in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra). Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries (supra) I find some force in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that at least penalty should be deleted in the instant case. 10. Even otherwise also a perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 shows that the Assessin....