2024 (8) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 31.12.2018. 2. The sole issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 51,18,200/- for the reason that there is no specific charge framed while initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e., Whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. We have heard ld. Senior DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring income of Rs. 16,03,180/-. While the assessment was pending, there was a survey on the business premises of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rma without making any clear charge that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished in accurate particulars of such income. The A.O. is not specific as to how the Appellant has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 7.3.4 The A.R. during the course of Appellate Proceedings has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble ITAT 'C Bench, Chennai in ITA No.3170/Chny/2019 in the case of The DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai v. M/s.Vicoans Infrastructure Environmental Engineering Pvt. Ltd. dated 24.08.2022. In this case, the Jurisdictional Tribunal has observed the following; "In the case under consideration the AO has not struck the appropriate in applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". The facts and circumstances discussed by the Hon'ble ITAT as per the decision relied upon supra will squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. In view of this, by following judicial discipline, I hold that as held by the Jurisdictional ITAT, that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting Rs. 30,84,800/- and Rs. 51,80,200/-are not sustainable for the AY(s) 2015-16 and 2016-17. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Appellant upon this issue are treated as allowed and the A.O. is hereby directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY(s) 2015-16 and 2016-17." 5. We not....