2022 (5) TMI 1380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting penalty 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the facts that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of the income. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be deleted merely on the basis of defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act, ignoring the pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s Snita Transport (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax whereby the Hon'ble High Court has stated that though the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the extent @ 12.5% and partly allowed the appeal. 4. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings. Whereas, the Assessing Officer relied on the observations of the scrutiny assessment and explanations furnished by the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations in respect of additions in the scrutiny assessment and observed that it is a fit case for levy of penalty for concealing the particulars of income and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.01.2020 and the penalty order was passed after the receipt of the Hon'ble Tribunal order. Whereas the Assessing Officer earlier has passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for the same assessment year for furnishin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty is invalid and the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty relying on the facts and judicial decisions and the Ld.AR relied on the legal decisions and supported the order of the CIT(A) . 8. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty, were the assessee has challenged in the appellate proceedings on the levy of penalty being legal issue as the A.O. has not applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal....