TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee submitted that the inappropriate limb in the notice was not strike off. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the Assessment Order submitted that the Assessing Officer merely initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) by issue of notice. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had not made clear in the Assessment Order for which charge the penalty is initiated either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Assessing Officer simply stated that "Issue penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act". Referring to Penalty Order, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income i.e. for both the charges. In the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has neither said that the assessee concealed his income nor it was said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings itsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking the charge clear. However, in the penalty order passed it is stated that penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income. While coming to the penalty order the Assessing Officer levies penalty for both furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment of income which charges were never mentioned in the Assessment Order while initiating the penalty proceedings. Even in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act the Assessing Officer has not made the charge clear by striking off the inappropriate charge before levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. An identical situation has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in Meherjee Cassinath Holdings v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2555/MUM/2012 dated 28.04.2017 as to whether the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without striking off one of the limbs and without specifying the specific charge in the notice initiating penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income in the Assessment Order and the Coordinate Bench considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra), the notices issued had not struck of the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 33) is perused, it is apparent that the relevant portions have not been struck off. This coupled with the fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order are quite consistent by the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. The contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itself is defective and further, there is no finding or satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relevant box in the show cause notice? 3. Mr. Rivankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order of the ITAT, on the basis of the reasons reflected therein. Besides, he relies upon the order dated 11.11.2019 in Tax Appeal No. 24/2019, where under the similar circumstances, this Court, dismissed the Appeal initiated by the Revenue, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. According to us, the issues raised in this Appeal are fully covered, not only by order dated 11.11.2019 made by us while dismissing Tax Appeal No. 24/2019, but, further, by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-11 Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Era Sova Mine. 5. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in our order dated 11.11.2019, we hold that the aforesaid substantial questions of law do not arise in this Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 11. We have also perused the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of....