TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-22, New Delhi for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The issue raised pertains to sustenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The grounds of appeal raised are as under :- "1. The order of CIT (A) is bad in law and on facts. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of expenditure of Rs.20,000/- relating to the fees paid to the ROC. 3. We note that pursuant to the penalty order passed in this case, upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) has also considered the assessee's challenge that in the notice of penalty, the charge has not been specified. The order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard may be referred to as under :- Pages 10 and 11 "6.2. The Ld.AR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....makes it amply clear that penalty has been imposed for concealment of income. I find AO was very clear in his mind 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew that even assuming that there was some error in initiation of penalty proceeding, the penalty order is not vitiated in the facts and circumstances of the case in which penalty was initiated as well as imposed. These arguments are rejected." 4. We note that assessee's challenge to the issue of initiation of penalty proceedings under penalty notice goes to the core of the jurisdictional aspect.....