TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and consequently treated the same as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act without 2)That later on it came to the knowledge that one important issue related with point of Law remain to be raised before the Honourable Bench, which other-wise affect the decision in connection with imposition of penalty by the Ld. A.O. Therefore, the appellant wishes to raise the following additional ground in the interest of Justice, as the objection in connection with the crucial, point of law remained to be considered earlier. As such the appellant pray your honors that considering the same as important point of Law and which does not require any further investigation of facts and in order provide proper justice to the appellant the same may kindly be permitted to raise now as an additional ground as per the provisions of Section249 of the Act. It Is before your honour that for adjudication in the interest of justice. 03) ADDITIONAL GROUND "That the Ld, A.O. has neither recorded his satisfaction whether the assessee has concealed her income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of her income in the assessment order nor in the Show Cause Notice served upon the appellant u/s 274 of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of penalty at Rs. 12,50,000/- levied by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, firstly raising the legal issue pleading that Ld. A.O has wrongly initiated the penalty proceedings by not specifying the charge for levy of penalty i.e. whether the penalty proceedings has been initiated for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. It was also pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that though the Ld. Assessing Officer has made proper satisfaction on record in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings but in the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, but Ld. A.O remained silent by not specifying as for which charge the penalty proceedings have been initiated. To examine this fact we have gone through the impugned notice issued on 01.04.2015 for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. For reference we reproduce below the notice u/s 274 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13; NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(c) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN ABGPY9514N/2715 OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of penalty at Rs. 16,00,000/- levied by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) on the addition of Rs. 51,00,000/- from undisclosed sources for purchase of immovable properties. Perusal of records shows that the assessee remaining negligent and non compliant to various opportunities provided by the Ld. A.O as well as Ld.CIT(A) during the course of penalty proceedings as well as appellate proceedings towards the levy of penalty. 12. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, firstly raising the legal issue pleading that Ld. A.O has wrongly initiated the penalty proceedings by not specifying the charge for levy of penalty i.e. whether the penalty proceedings has been initiated for concealing of particulars of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. It was also pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that though the Ld. Assessing Officer has made proper satisfaction on record in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings but in the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, but Ld. A.O remained silent by not specifying as to which charge the penalty proceedings have been initiated. To examine this fact we have gone through the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the specific requirement of law. Assessee should know the grounds on which he has charged specific otherwise opportunities of natural justice denied. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assesssee in another limb is bad in law". Though in the instant appeal the Ld. A.O has made proper satisfaction in the body of the assessment order but in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act he failed to mention the limbs for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. It is the negligence of the Ld. A.O in not making proper specific charge in the notice u/s 274 about the addition for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged addition goes under the limb of "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Merely issuing notice in general proforma will negate the very purpose of natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N Shraf 161 Taxmann 218 that "the quasicriminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural ....