2016 (11) TMI 1727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Kailash Gaikwad, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2003-04. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-53 Mumbai and arises out of the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (The 'Act'). 2. We begin with ground of appeal number 2.2 raised by the assessee which reads as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act issued on 30.12.2009 by the AO (p.40-41 of the Paper Book). At the end of the notice, it has been mentioned that inappropriate words and paragraph should be deleted. The AO has not done so. In fact in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "...We find from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in the penalty proceedings, that is, the final conclusion as expressed in para 4 of the order : 'I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income'. Now, the language of 'and/or' may be proper in issuing a notice as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er section 271(1)(c) was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished, order of penalty could not be sustained.' 5.4 In CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that 'The vagueness and ambiguity in the notice had also prejudiced the right of reasonable opport....