TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t') dated 21.03.2016 framed by ACIT-4(1), Bhopal. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; 1. That on the facts of the case and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of penalty is bad in law and without jurisdiction, hence be cancelled. 2. That on the facts of the case and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty has been levied on the basis of vague and non specific show cause notice, hence the order of penalty is unsustainable in law, hence be cancelled. 3. That on the facts of the case and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in absence of clear findings about the charge for which the penalty is imposed, the penalty order is bad in law and, therefore, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty can be initiated either for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the Ld.A.O has not recorded any charge on the assessee, as to whether penalty is to be levied for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income'. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Kulwant Singh Bhatia ITA No.9 of 2018 dated 9.5.2018, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld.A.O has failed in comply the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act by initiating the penalty proceedings with no specific charge. Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OFFICE OF THE Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-Range-2 Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal Dated 16/12/2011 PAN AAGPH6333P To Shri Vijay Hariramani, 11, New Market, Bhopal Sir, Sub:- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 In connection with the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) for the assessment year(s) 2009-10 you are requested to attend my office on or before 31/01/2012 at 11.30 AM to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. However, if you do not wish to be heard in person in this regard, you may submit your written submissions so as to reach me by the above date which will be considered before disposal of the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 impugned notice issued for initiating the penalty proceedings u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT V/s SSA's Emeralad Meadows (supra) held that "on due consideration of the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not specify the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that Ld. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty enforced by the authority". 15. Similarly in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Ginning Factory, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically mention the ground in section 271(1)(c) whether concealment of income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.10 is invalid, untenable and suffers from the infirmity of non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. We accordingly direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on this ground itself. We accordingly allow the additional ground raised by the assessee on the legality of the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) also has been dealt on the preliminary points other arguments of the assessee dealing with the merits of the levy of penalty are not been dealt with, as the same are rendered academic in nature and the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed". 11. We therefore ....