2023 (5) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-II, Nashik on 19-09-2011 confirming penalty of Rs.99,329/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). 2. It is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Tribunal on 31-12-2015 was subseq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hrough the relevant material on record, it is seen that there is only one income of Rs.3.00 lakh, which has been considered for imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 26-12-2008, whose copy has been placed on record. On perusal of such notice, it is seen that the AO proposed to impose penalty on both the limbs namely; "....you have c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 ITR (9) (ST) (SC). In view of the overwhelming position, it is clear that where the charge is not properly set out in the notice u/s 274 viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off of the inapplicable limb, but the penalty has been, in fact, levied for one of the two, such a penalty order gets vitiated. 5. Turning to the facts of extant case, we find from the notice u/s 274 of the....