2022 (7) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The solitary ground involved in these appeals is pertaining to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the issue is common, we pass a consolidated order on all these appeals, taking ITA No.289/Mum/2016 as the lead case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that it was alleged that the assessee, alongwith one Shri Dilip Shah were involved in issuing bogus bills to various entities, which are mainly involved in steel markets. It was found that they had opened several bank accounts in the names of different persons, who are found to be dummy persons. A search and seizure action was carried out under section 132 of I.T. Act in the case of the assessee on 05/02/2011, based on the above mentioned allegatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan Shaikh 234 ITR 1 (Bom) wherein it was held that the non striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice which is in printed form, will vitiate the penalty proceedings. 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, stated that the Tribunal has upheld the quantum addition in assessee's case for assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08. The Ld.DR further stated that the assessee's case would be covered under both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) viz. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Harprashad & Co Ltd (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del). The Ld.DR further relied on the orders of lower autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of disposal of these appeals by considering the decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs CIT (supra). On perusal of the assessment order we find that several additions have been made both in the assessees' case as well as in the case of the partner, Shri Dilip C Shah wherein the Assessing Officer has failed to specify on what ground section 271(1)(c) penalty has to be levied. At para 6 on page 9 of the order under section 271(1)(c) of the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has stated that "Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case I am fully convinced that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied". That be....