2022 (9) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.271(1)(c) of Rs.65,869/-. The penalty needs deletion. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.65,869/- in respect of addition made on without proper verification and settled law. The penalty needs deletion. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.65,869/- without properly considering that Ld.A.O. has erred in not giving adequate time and opportunity although the assessee specifically requested for the same. The penalty needs deletion. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in not brining any cogent material justifying levy of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in not giving proper and adequate opportunity. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Varia Navneet Muljibhai wherein the Hon. ITAT has been please to delete the penalty levied. 1.3 It may also be submitted that the Ld. A.O. has made addition of profit elements on estimate basis therefore penalty cannot be levied assessee also placed reliance on decision given by Hon. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana 258 ITR 85 it was held that provision of Sec.271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis arid addition are made therein on that basis thus penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 1.4 It is also submitted that the amount retain at 10% is also purely on estimated basis and no solid proof / evidence for determining income as mentioned above are established. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e decision of Hon. ITAT Rajkot in the ease of Paraskumar V. Kataria ITA No. 542/RJT/2012 it was held that it is requisite of law that the notice to the assessee should be specific it therefore must follow that the notice issued proposing penalty were illusory and the assessee was incapacitated to defend its case. 3.2 At Para 2 page no. 2 of the penalty order the Ld. A.O. has mentions that simultaneously penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 were initialed for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 3.3 Whereas the notice is issued dated 10/01/2014, 15/07/2014 and 22/07/2014 (Copy enclosed) through which, the penalty proceedings are initiated and completed describes as under. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons filed by the Ld.AR. It is pertinent to note that the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10/01/2014 has not specified any particular limb for imposing the penalty as relates to whether it is concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the Revenue is not specifying any limb and simply imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without staking any default on the part of the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings related to information of income of the assessee. In the original assessment order, the addition was made in respect of peak credit balance and addition of bank interest. From the perusal of the records, it can be seen that the assessee has requested the Asse....