2019 (2) TMI 1793

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee are as under: "Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, 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-   Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) : Rs. 6,66,104/-   a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the show cause notice u/s. 274 r. w. s. 271(l)(c) of the Act dated 28.12.2016 issued by the Ld. AO was bad in law, having been issued without specifying the precise charge for im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is bad in law as  issued without specifying the specific charge for imposition of penalty.     4. The facts in brief are that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.12.2016 assessing the total income at Rs. 24,32,115/- as against the return income of Rs. 2,76,440/-.  The only addition made by the AO is on account of bogus the long term capital gain of Rs. 21,30,675/- which was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Act and thus AO added the entire sale proceeds of shares of Rs. 21,30,675/- to the income of the assessee for being non genuine.  While passing the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, the Ld. A.R. took us through the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) wherein finally the penalty was imposed in accordance with explanation 4 to section 271 of the Act.  The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted that there is glaring inconsistencies in the whole process of imposition of penalty thereby  depriving  the assessee of his legitimate right to respond to the particular charge in the show cause notice on which the penalty was proposed to be levied as no specific charge was indicted in the notice issued to the assessee and therefore  the assessee could not respond to the same. The AR contended that thus  the penalty proceedings and consequent  order passed by the AO are vitiated and bad in law.&nbs....