TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment Year 2004-05. The assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(A) o the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer on income of Rs. 1,17,479/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has failed to appreciate that the Assessing officer had levied the penalty on addition of bonafide explanation. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar has failed to appreciate that the source of all deposits in the bank stood fully explained and there was no difference of Rs. 1,17,479/-." Further, the assessee has raised the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs u/s 271(1)(c) in the body of the assessment order. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 30.01.2015 confirmed an addition of Rs. 2,49,415/- (out of addition of Rs. 4,94,415/-). 7. The Assessing Officer after receiving the order of the CIT(A) called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act may not be imposed on him. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the Assessing Officer that no penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act was liable to be imposed on him. However, the Assessing Officer not being persuaded to accept the explanation of the assessee imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 74,310/- for concealment of income. 8. Aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41 & 1842/Chny/2019, dated 04.12.2019]. (ii). Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi Vs. ACIT- 20(2), Mumbai [ITA No. 2976/Mum/2016, dated 27.02.2017]. 11. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, on a perusal of the 'SCN', dated 28.12.2010, it stands revealed that the Assessing Officer had failed to strike off the irrelevant default while calling upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I.T Act may not be imposed on him. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the irrelevant default in the 'Show cause' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is not conveyed in clear terms the specific default for which penalty under the said statutory provision was sought to be imposed on him. In our considered view, the indispensable requirement on the part of the A.O to put the assessee to notice as regards the specific charge contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision viz. 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' is not merely an idle formality but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate of law. 13. We would now test the validity of the aforesaid 'Show Cause' notice and the jurisdiction emerging therefrom in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements on the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limb in the notice clearly reveals a non-application of mind by the A.O had observed as under:- "83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he has furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing reliance on the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154 of 2014; Dt. 05.01.2017)(Bom). 15. We find that as averred by the Ld. A.R. the indispensable obligation on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice of the charge under the aforesaid statutory provision viz. Sec. 271(1)(c) had been deliberated upon at length by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, i.e. ITAT "C" Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO-15(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, dated 01.09.2017). The Tribunal in the aforementioned case had in the backdrop of various judicia....