2019 (5) TMI 1374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is regarding the upholding the action of AO by Ld. CIT(A) in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has challenged the penalty on various grounds on legal issue as well as on merits. 3. The facts in brief are that the penalty was initiated in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act on 21.03.2014 wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated for both the limbs i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as for concealment of income as has been stated in para 4.5, 5.5 & 6.5 of the assessment order dated 21.03.2014. Besides , the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after, the Ld. A.R. further stated that the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) dated 23.09.2014, the AO levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income which is blatantly wrong and against the ratio laid down by the various judicial forums. In defence of his argument, the Ld. A.R. relied on the following case laws: * CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC) 73 taxmann.com 248 dated 5.8.2016 * Mrs. Piedade Perinchery (BomHC) ITANo. 1310 of 2014 dated 10.01.2017 * Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT (Bom HC ) 392 ITR 4 dated 05.01.2017 * CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (Kar HC) 73 taxmann.com 241 dated 23. 11. 20 15 * CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 35 taxmann.com 250 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalty were mentioned and thus there was no defect whatsoever in the said notice. Thereafter, the penalty order dated 23.09.2014 was passed for concealment of particulars of income by invoking exp 1 and 4 . Since the AO has correctly initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274 read with section 271 and the assessee duly participated in the penalty proceedings and the contentions raised by the assessee were duly considered. Therefore, it is not open to the assessee to claim that no proper opportunity was given as particular limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied was not mentioned. The Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: 1. Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d with section 271 of the Act dated 21.3.2014 wherein the AO has not mentioned the particular limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied. In other words, the notice was issued in a standard format without any application of mind and the inappropriate/redundant words were not deleted by the AO. Thereafter, the penalty was imposed for concealment of particulars of income by invoking Exp 1 and 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our opinion, by these acts of the AO in not striking off the inappropriate limb in the notice is clear cut in violation of principle of natural justice as the assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity to respond and deal with the particular charge on which the penalty was levied. In our view, the pe....