TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer [for short "AO"] u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year [for short "AY"] 2010-11. 2. In advancing the matter for adjudication, it is essential to reproduce grounds challenged by the appellant as under; "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 40,239/- imposed by the AO. The penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified." "2. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the ground/s of appeal." 3. Before pulling the facts out of the case, at the outset, it is brought to the notice of the bench that, the present appeal was delayed by five days, Ld. AO through an affidavit filed on record following the principle of "a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessments was culminated at Rs.6,87,966/- by an order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Out of the total addition, an addition of Rs.2,51,275/- u/s 69C was made on account of unaccounted purchases surrendered and wherefore the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 4.2 Ld. AO observing that, the aforesaid quantum order was unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before the first appellate authority and in the absence of any record suggesting further appeal thereagainst, has concocted the acceptance of quantum by the assessee and by issue of letter dt 22/09/2014 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated the penalty proceedings and followed by a show cause notice [for short "SCN"] dt 14/01/2015 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Not fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to arrive at the applicability in the instant case before us; 271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the [Assessing] Officer or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) . . . . . (b) . . . . . (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or [* * *] furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or] (d) . . . . . he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,- (i) . . . . . (ii) . . . . . (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) [or clause (d)], [in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to appreciate the point being canvassed by the assessee before us, which is based on the tone and drift of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt 14/01/2015, a copy of which has been placed on record which de-facto reads as under; During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax, 1961 for A.Y 2010-11. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated. Therefore, you are hereby requested to appear before me at my office on 29/01/2015 at 11.30 A.M and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR heavily relied upon in support of legal ground raised as "fumus boni iuris." 7.5 The Ld. DR did not dispute the factual matrix, but sought to point out that, there was a due application of mind by Ld. AO in the assessment order, wherein after discussing the reasons for the disallowance, has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which can be seen from the relevant text of the order of the assessment; "In addition to this, through order sheet dtd.28/12/2012, the counsel himself accepted the above mistake and he offered to surrender the amount of Rs. 251275/- for addition in the hand of the assessee. Now decision is to be taken as whether the amount of Rs. 251275/- will be considered for unexplained investment u/s 69 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued without any limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act which evidently brings out the reticence on the part of Assessing Officer, resultantly there is complete absentia of clear and crystallised charge being conveyed u/s 271(1)(c), which to be defended by the appellant assessee. In this regard we also refer a similar judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of "S Chandrashekar Vs ACIT", reported at 396 ITR 538 (Karn) wherein a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued in printed form without specifying the grounds of initiation of penalty proceedings, was held to be invalid and untenable in law. 8. In omnibus, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i....