2019 (1) TMI 1573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l8, Mumbai. ["Ld. CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), your appellant prefers this appeal, among others, on the following grounds of appeal, each of which is without prejudice to, and independent of, the other: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 22,85,000/- imposed by the Ld. A.O. u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate, and ought to have accepted, that the appellant neither concealed any particulars of income, nor did it furnish any inaccurate particulars of such income. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the levy of penalty of Rs. 22,85,000/- be cancelled. 2. Your appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted for the default committed within the meaning of the Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty order dated 24.03.2014 the AO in para 4.3 stated that the assessee has concealed its income as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of income particulars of income whereas in para 5.2 of the penalty order the AO sated that he satisfied about the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and finally imposed penalty at para 6 equal to Rs. 67,20,068/- which works out to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Ld. AR vehemently submitted that it is settled law that the AO has to strike down the irrelevant of the two limbs in the penalty notice issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the AO has failed to do so in the notice issued date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee that the penalty in the present facts of the case cannot be sustained as the assessee was deprived an opportunity to respond on the particular charge on which the penalty was to be levied. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors., 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and the CIT Vs Samsaon Perincherry (Supra) in which it has been held that no penalty has to be levied where the AO has not stated in the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act one of the two limb on which the penalty is proposed to be levied. Even on merit the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010]....