TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a delay of 220 days. 3. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. ITA 345/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. 6. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 7. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal, and which also arises before this Court is: whether the penalty proceedings are flawed, since the notice issued in that behalf failed to indicate which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] was attracted for initiation of proceedings? In other words, whether proceedings were triggered against the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) via order dated 26.12.2018 scaled down the rate of penalty to 150%. It is in this backdrop, that both the appellant/revenue and the respondent/assessee preferred appeals with the Tribunal. 9.1 The Tribunal, via the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee, while rejecting the appeal of the appellant/revenue. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee, having regard to the fact, that the AO had not arrived at a clear satisfaction as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was applicable, while passing the penalty order. In other words, according to the Tribunal, there was no clarity, whether the respondent/assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB). 13. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, the Tribunal concluded, that the penalty order could not be sustained, and consequently allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. 14. Mr Kumar, in support of his appeal, has vehemently argued that the impugned order is erroneous. In support of his submission, Mr Kumar has relied upon the judgment of another coordinate bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. ECS Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 162 (Del). 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esaid judgement are extracted hereafter: "21. Penalty proceedings entail civil consequences for the assessee. The AO is required to apply his mind to the material particulars, and indicate clearly, as to what is being put against the respondent/assessee when triggering the penalty proceedings. 22. In case the AO concludes, that a case is made out under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, he needs to indicate, clearly, as to which limb of the said provision is attracted. The reason we say so is, that apart from anything else, the pecuniary burden may vary, depending on the infraction(s) committed by the respondent/assessee. In a given case, where concealment has taken place, a heavier burden may be imposed, than in a situation where an assesse....