TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act, dated 21.09.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1) The Ld. Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) erred in rejecting the application of the appellant made in Form 68 under the act for immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the IT Act, 1961 and proceeded for penalty proceeding and accordingly imposed total penalty of Rs. 1,13,345/-. The rejection of Form 68 against the fact made by JAO of is highly arbitrary, unjustified and unlawful on the fact and in the circumstances of the case. The subsequent penalty proceeding and penalty order is liable to be set aside. 2) That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals has erred in confirming the penalty imposed by Jurisdictional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stem for the AY 2018-19 falling within the explanation (i) of proviso to section 148 of the Act, the case of the assessee was taken up for reopening assessment. In due course after conducting the re-assessment proceedings, the reopening assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act was culminated wherein certain disallowances were made. Later on, on account of under reporting of income inconsequence of misreporting penalty proceedings u/s 270A were initiated by the jurisdictional AO and penalties were imposed for Rs. 1,13,345/- invoking the provisions of section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the contentions raised by the assessee befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 270A initiated for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. Against above additions, appellant applied for immunity from imposition of penalty but was rejected by Ld. JAO and penalty is imposed of all above three amounts whether initiated or not. Against the same, appellant filed the appeal before NFAC-CIT-Appeals but was rejected and present appeal lies before Hon'ble bench. * The rejection of application for immunity from imposing penalty u/ s 27 OA of the Act is arbitrary and unlawful on the ground of delay in application beyond 30 days from service of demand notice where due to defective demand notice, the appellant made the due tax payment and applied for immunity from penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prayer Penalty imposed without satisfaction recorded by Ld AO and imposed by Ld JAO is arbitrary and unlawful and also the imposed penalty whether due to under reporting or misreporting is also not clear while initiating and issuing the notice of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, therefore the penalty order may kindly be set aside and be deleted and oblige. 7. Dislodging the contentions of assessee and the prayer by the Ld. AR, Ld. Sr. DR on the contrary strongly supported the orders of revenue authorities and requested to uphold the same. 8. We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record and case laws placed before us for our consideration. The main controversy raised by the Ld. AR on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued in the printed form, then, the necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity the nature of the satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra), the notices issued had not struck off the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 32) is perused, it is apparent tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) wherein the relevant findings of Mumbai Tribunal are culled out as under: Where Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with section 56(2) (x), case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income and moreover since in penalty notice under section 270A revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, entire proceeding was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason 10. On perusal of the original order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B and the penalty order u/s 270A, it is transpired that the penalty imposed on capital gain of Rs. 9,16,272/- which was declared by the assessee in its return filed in respo....