2022 (6) TMI 883

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. The order of CIT (A) is bad in law and on facts. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer despite the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty for concealment of income in assessment order. 3. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer despite the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not specific as to under which limb he was going to penalize the appellant company. 4. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer merely on the basis of findings recorded in the assessment order without making any further enquiry on the addition of cash deposit of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that under which limb of the section 271(1)(c), penalty is leviable. Therefore the argument of the appellant that the AO has not specified the charge, is not correct and not on the sound footing. 6.4 Even if assuming that there was vagueness in the initiation of penalty proceeding, the same has caused no prejudice to the appellant as the appellant clearly understood the purport and import of initiation of penalty proceeding. Entire facts and background of the case should be kept in mind and mere mistake in the language should not vitiate the proceeding. 6.5 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT, Chennai, TC (Appeal) No.87....