TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant, either recorded in the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 or in the notice under section 274 (accompanying the assessment order), penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not have been levied, much less upheld by the "CIT(A)". WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. BECAUSE "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in holding that "all facts were detected during the proceedings u/s 143 by AO during assessment and they were not disclosed by the assessee" and in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,92,000/- that had been imposed by the Asstt. ClT-ll, Kanpur, by virtue of order dated 29.03.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. BECAUSE on a due consideration of chronology of relevant dates and events, as culled out from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31.12.2007 Assessment order captioned as order u/s 147/143(3) was made at an income of Rs. 13,79,520/-; the variation of Rs. 2,500/- being on account of disallowance of claim of expenditure (as had been made by the appellant in the "return" filed on 02.03.2006, where capital gain was shown at Rs. 13,77,020/-). it deserves to be held that the appellant could not have been visited with the "charge" of concealment of income and levy of penalty on that "charge", as has been upheld by the "CIT(A)" also, was wholly illegal. 5. BECAUSE otherwise also and in any case, it deserves to be held by the "authorities" below that, after the appellant had been served with a notice under section 148, it had filed the "return" giving full particulars of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge for which penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income, or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, is not specific. The law mandates that the authority who is proposing to impose penalty shall be certain as to the basis on which the penalty is being levied and the notice must reflect that specific reason, so that the assessee, to whom such notice is given, can prepare himself regarding the defence which he would like to take to support his case. This is even enshrined in the principles of natural justice and as has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. We place reliance on the following cases:- 1. 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows', [2016] 73 Taxm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. Assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings though it emanates from the assessment proceedings still it is separate and independent proceedings all together. 3. 'Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)', ITA NO. 2555/MUM/2012, order dated 28/04/2017 wherein the observation of the Bench was that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are "quasi-criminal" proceedings and ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. The nons....