TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The notice issued u/s 274 read with Sec. 271 of the Act Dt. 24/02/2014 did not specified any specific limb or clause whether penalty initiated for Concealment of income or for providing inaccurate particulars of income, was thus by issue of invalid and defective notice. The penalty order passed is thus bad in law and hence penalty order passed By A.O and confirmed by CIT(A)-2 Vadodara be directed to be deleted being void. 2. There being no concealment of particulars of income, the penalty order confirmed by Ld. CIT(a)-2, Vadodara u/s 271(1)(c) is unjust and unlawful and considering facts of the case, the penalty of Rs. 5,58,360/- be deleted now." 3. The brief fact is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed reliance on the decision on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 35 ITR Taxman.com 250 (Kar) and stated that assessing officer has not deleted the inappropriate words and part of notice therefore it was not clear what was default committed by the assessee. The ld. counsel has also submitted that assessee was a salaried employee, however, he has disclosed the commission income in the revised return of income filed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the assessing officer. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has vehemently contended that assessee has not disclosed the commission in the original return of income fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for not disclosing commission income and interest income in the return of income. As elaborated supra in this order, the assessee has not disclosed the commission and interest income to the amount of Rs. 10,85,472/- in the original return of income, therefore, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has not made any compliance before the assessing officer in spite of issuing of numbers of notices and letters as cited above in this order. We have also gone through the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act and it is noticed that assessing officer has categorically concluded that it is case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which attract the penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Thus insofar as final order of penalty was concerned, the Assessing Officer was clear and penalty was imposed for concealing particulars of income. In light of this, we may peruse the decision of this Court in case of Manu Engineering Works (supra). In the said de....