2022 (5) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l on merits. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue raised in ground no.3 which is reproduced as under: 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding the penalty in spite of the fact that the statutory notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c ) of the Act was without striking out in appropriate words/charge, meaning thereby that penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c ) had been initiated for both the offences, which is not permissible under law as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. 3. Vide this ground, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,04,350/- as imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by issuing notice u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eted as the penalty notice is suffering from the vice of invalidity of not specifying the relevant limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied and is bad in law. The ld. DR , per contra, submitted that though the AO has mentioned both the limbs in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act but the assessee has been given proper and sufficient opportunity to respond to the said notice and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to reply to the specific charge. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record including the impugned notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c ) dated 31.3.2015. We observe that the notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c ) dated ....