AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls are heard analogously and disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take into consideration the facts and grounds mentioned in ITA No.53/CTK/2019 for the assessment year 2010-2011 for deciding all the appeals. Grounds taken by the assessee in the said appeal for assessment year 2010-2011 are as under :- a. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O and CIT(A) are erred in law in imposing penalty, amounting to Rs. 24,792/-, u/s.271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961; b. For that the Ld. AO and CIT(A) are erred in imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any undisclosed income being found during the course of assessment vis-a-vis the return filed U/s. 153A of the I.T. Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued notice u/s.153C of the Act to furnish the return and in pursuance to which the assessee filed her return of income on 27.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 3,89,622/-. Thereafter on issuance of statutory notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.153C of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 3,89,620/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 25.04.2018 levying penalty of Rs. 24,792/- for A.Y.2010-2011. Similarly, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 8,050/- for A.Y.2011-2012, Rs. 13,143/- for A.Y.2012-2013, Rs. 14,210/- for A.Y.2013-2014 and Rs. 14,476/- for A.Y.2015-2016, respectively. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date of search which means the assessee has concealed his income and, therefore, attracts penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. After considering the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record as well as orders of lower authorities, we find that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non- application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.10.2017 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. 10. The facts of the present appeals are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows(supra) and, therefore, the decision ....