TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing penalty of Rs. 4,97,500/-, u/s 271(1 H C and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without appreciating the facts, and circumstances of the case an< that too without giving any opportunity of hearing. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the action of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in imposing penalty of Rs.4,97,500/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable o various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in imposing a of R 4,97,500/- that too without recording mandatory "satisfaction" as per law. 4. That having regard to the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation was later on taken from HUDA with the help of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice dated 20/6/2014 has not given a specific charge for penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e stages. Hence assessee is precluded from taking the plea that he has been put to prejudice by not striking off the appropriate limb of Section 271(l)(c). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 14/02/2014 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. In the present case the enhanced compensation and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 27....