TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year 2010-11. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) at Rs. 6,92,757/-. Prayed that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable as the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor filed inaccurate particulars of income. Prayed to delete the penalty at Rs. 6,92,757/- 2. That under facts and law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned AO on following additions/disallowances, rejecting the explanation filed. 1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from its gross total income Rs. 2,00,000/- The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. After culmination of the assessment the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.09.2013 imposed penalty of Rs. 6,92,757/- on the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) not finding favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o impress upon us that even otherwise no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) qua the additions/disallowances made in the hands of the assessee was called for in the hands of the assessee. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') had placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. Admittedly, on a perusal of the 'SCN', dated 30.03.2013, it transpires that the Assessing Officer had failed to point out the default qua which the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the indispensable requirement on the part of the A.O to put the assessee to notice as regards the specific charge contemplated under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' is not merely an idle formality but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate of law. 9. We would now test the validity of the aforesaid 'Show Cause' notice and the jurisdiction emerging therefrom in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncements on the issue under consideration. Admittedly, the A.O is vested with the powers to levy penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, if in the course of the proceedings he is satisfi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he has furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing reliance on the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from nonapplication of mind. It was also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 2 SCC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mann.com 248 (SC). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154 of 2014; Dt. 05.01.2017) (Bom). 11. We find that as averred by the Ld. A.R the indispensable obligation on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice of the charge under the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Sec. 271(1)(c) had been deliberated upon by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, i.e. ITAT "C" Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO-15(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, dated 01.09.2017). The Tribunal in the aforementioned case had in the backdrop of various judicial pronouncements concluded that the failure to specify....