2019 (7) TMI 1733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... erred in upholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The show-cause notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28th March 2013 is null and void. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in Iron and Steel Trading. The assessee filed its return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring loss at Rs. 7,47,860/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 28.03.2013 under section 143(3) wherein the loss on account of purchase and sale of shares of SK Ispat was held as a sham transaction and the long term capital loss was not allowed to carry forward. The Assessing Officer while passing the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR of the assessee submits that no specific charge was specified in the notice dated 28.03.2014, issue under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order has not specified under which limb of Clause (c) of section 271(1) the penalty was initiated. Accordingly, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in absence of specific charge, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer is not sustainable in support of his submissions relied on the decision in assessee's group case in Radhakrishna Vs ACIT (ITA No.3728/M/2017 dated 14.03.2019) , Bombay High Court in Samson Perinchary (ITA No. 1154 of 2014), Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (359ITR 565 Kar) and Andhra Pradesh High....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 28.03.2013 was also issued without striking off the inappropriate portion of the notice. 7. Even on legal issue raised by the assessee, we have noted that on similar case in assessee's group case the coordinate bench of the Tribunal on similar set of facts in Radhakrishna Roadway Pvt Ltd Vs ACT (supra) deleted the penalty holding as under: "We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record including the various decision cited by the learned AR. The undisputed facts are that the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without mentioning whether the same relates to concealment ....