TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty of Rs. 7,10,700/- imposed by the AO., invoking the provisions of sec 271 (1) (c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 7,10,700/-, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 4. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. " 2. In all these appeals penalty under Section 271(1)(c) levied by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is under challenge. The assessee is ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional income in all these years. The application of the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission therefore the assessments got completed under Section 153A of the Act. In the assessment, the disclosure made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission, which was not offered in the return of income filed, was added as income of the assessee and further addition on account of unexplained credit was also made. The penalty proceedings were also initiated. Against the assessment order assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). However, assessee did not prosecute the appeals and applied for withdrawal of the same. The ld. CIT (Appeals) allowed the application. 5. Based on this the penalty proceedings commenced. Dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fic charge against the assessee. He further submitted that the penalty has been levied in the penalty orders on both the charges and, therefore, the penalty orders are not sustainable in law. 6. During the course of hearing, he also raised an additional ground of appeal as under:- " On the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice is not sustainable and not curable. " 7. He submitted that the abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fers from infirmity and based on it , penalty cannot be levied. Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has held so. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 12. The ld. DR submitted that the notice issued is a non-statutory notice and, therefore, any defect therein cannot result into holding the penalty proceedings it is invalid. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the certified copies of the notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 20th June, 2014 for all these years wherein it is a fact that the ld. AR has not struck off one of the two ....