TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 23.05.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs. 10,46,312/- (@100%) by the ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the impugned appellate order wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under: 5. The said notice is dated 30.11.2017. He thus, referring to the said notice submitted that no specific charge has been made out by the Ld. AO for imposition of penalty. He placed reliance on several judicial precedents including that of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court had come to the conclusion that unless the charge against the assessee is specific, the same could not be maintained. Thus, on this sole technical defect in the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty so imposed is ought to be deleted. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on another decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He further pointed out from para 3 of the said order that the appeal was admitted by the Hon'ble Court by order dated 14.09.2004 on the substantial question of law raised therein. He further referred to para 4 to point out that during the pendency of the hearing, it was only by oral application that a technical plea of vagueness in the notice was raised before the Hon'ble Court, thereby the question was recorded by passing an order on 13.07.2023 which is almost 20 years after the admission of the appeal along with its substantial question of law. 7.2. Ld. Counsel then referred to para 34 on the observation made by the Hon'ble Court where the Court questioned itself as to- "Should the Court now after more than 20 years of the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra), Ld. Counsel distinguished its applicability in the present case of the assessee, as contended by the Ld. Sr.DR. He further submitted that at the time of issuing the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), Assessing Officer is not aware of the fact as to whether assessee is going in appeal or not on the quantum additions made. Hence, the notice so issued for initiating penalty proceedings must contain a specific charge out of the two charges contained in section 271(1)(c) for imposing a penalty on the assessee. 8. We note that in the present case before us, the facts and circumstances are altogether different from the peculiar set of facts as contained in the case of Veena Estates (P) Ltd. pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, narrated above. ....