TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. In all these three appeals of the assessee, common issue is involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience, a common order is being passed. 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that asessee is an individual. A search and seizure operation was conducted on assessee group on 17.11.2009 and notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to assessee. After making addition, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO vide Notice u/s 274 dated 27.12.2011 and penalty of Rs. 1,26,100/-(AY 2006-07), Rs. 3,73,000/- (AY 2007-08), Rs. 1,93,000/- (AY 2008-09) was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of particulars of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income or concealment of particulars of such income. It is further important to note that, in notice, under the point which is intended towards proposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the word OR has been used between the charge of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. These facts and circumstances make it abundantly clear that in the case of assessee, penalty notice is completely vague and ambiguous. The AO simply issued a preprinted notice without striking off the unnecessary charge and not mentioning the precise charge. The above act of the AO clearly shows that the entire exercise of initiation of penalty proceedings has been done without application of mind which resulted into issuing a completely vague jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcise of initiation of penalty proceedings has been done without application of mind. " 9. We also observe that during the course of penalty proceedings, the strong reliance has been put by the AO on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court the case of UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles 293 ITR 581 (SC). In this regard we observe that the issue has been dealt by Hon'ble Bench at length in the case of Shri Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1094/JP/2019 vide order dated 03.01.2020 (DPB 922) by holding as under: "19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff s JCI'I', [20071291 ITR 519 (SC), has observed that while issuing the notice under section 274 r/ w section 271, in the standard format, the Assessing Officer s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 26.10.2018. The decision of Hon'ble SC, is distinguishable on the facts as well as law on the following grounds: (i) In the case of Sundarma Finance, the decision was passed against the assessee on the ground that defect in the notice was never pointed out at any stage of proceedings, whereas in the case of assessee the same has been challenged before appellate authority. (ii) The case of Sundaram Finance Ltd recorded a very favorable finding and upheld the principle of natural justice by holding that "If the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter". This findi....