2021 (1) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') vide his order dated 27.02.2015. The penalty under dispute was levied by DCIT, Circle-3, Thane under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 31.08.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed copy of Tribunal's order in quantum appeal in ITA No. 3807/Mum/2018 vide order dated 21.08.2019 for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal has restored back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer in regard to bogus purchases by observing in para- 5 as under: 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is of the opinion that this is a fit case of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, he may reinitiate. 6. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of this case. We setaside the orders of lower authorities and observed that in case, the Assessing Officer during set-aside assessment proceedings comes to the conclusion or he believes that this is a fit case for levy of penalty, he may reinitiate the penalty during set-aside assessment proceedings. 7. In terms of the above observations, present penalty proceedings are deleted and appeal of assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7320/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 8. This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [for shor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne (hereinafter referred to as A. 0.) of Rs. 1,77,840/-, without appreciating that the Notice U/s. 274 dated 27th February, 2015 did not specify the charge for which the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) had been initiated i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, hence the penalty order U/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the penalty is levied without specifying the Ground in the Notice, hence the order passed by A.O. is bad in law, hence penalty liable to be deleted. On Merits: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order of the A.O, without appreciating the fact: a) ....