TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the submissions of the assessee that the notice as issued for levying the penalty did not specify the specific charge against the assessee and, as such, the levy of penalty, is void ab initio as per number of judgments cited before the Worthy CIT (A) at pages 3 to 6 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3. That on facts and circumstances, the levy of penalty is wholly unjustified. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned orders, confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by the ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to explain in an answer to the quarry of the A.O., as the relevant limb are not struck off. In support he placed reliance on the land mark judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.S.A. Emerald Meadows besides relying on number of judgments on various High Courts and appellate Tribunals as relied before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. Counsel has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT 2021 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08 (i) Deposits in Indian Bank 2,68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A. order u/s 143(3) 2008-09 (>) Deposits in Indian Bank 7,03,400 4,37,400 4,37,400 1,23,735 Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A. order u/s 143(3) 2009-10 (i) Deposits in Indian Bank 8,55,448 2,95,458 2,95,458 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh", (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt.) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no matter but that the inapplicable portion shall be deleted. It is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be précised and at the case, no room for ambiguity. Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notices primarily suffered from ambiguity and the vice of vagueness, thus, vitiated the penalty proceeding. 13. In ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 49 to 53/Asr/2021, the facts are exactly similar and identical to the facts in the case of ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 48/Asr/2021 in mutatis mutandis in respect of printed format notice without striking off the irrelevant portion make it vague and ambiguous u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and vitiates the penalty proceedings. 14. Respectfully following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), and in the interest of all fairness and justice, we hereby delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of all the six assessment years under appeal. 15. In the res....