TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] which in turn arisen out of order of penalty dt. 30/03/2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11, Pune ['Ld. AO'] anent to assessment year 2010-11 ['AY']. 2. This adjudication seeks to answer the validity of penalty proceedings qua general notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with both the limbs and without specifying applicable limb for which penalty sought to have initiated. 3. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; 3.1 The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of process control and management systems, filed its original return on 28/09/2010 declaring taxable income of 93,21,75,320/- which was processed u/s 143(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) income variation as per 26AS the assessee was called upon to showcase as to why penalty for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income should not be levied. Holding assessee's explanation unsatisfactory & unconvincing, the Ld. AO levied the penalty equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded in relation to former three sustained additions/disallowances. 3.4 Aggrieved assessee contested the imposed penalty in an appeal u/s 246A of the Act which was allowed on merits. Aggrieved by the relief granted in first appeal, the Revenue has set this case to reverse the relief on the following grounds; 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the cases the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as alleged by the AO in the assessment and penalty orders; 2. The Ld. AO erred in not striking-off the irrelevant limb / charge and initiated penalty by reproducing both the limbs of sec 271(1)(c) of the Act in the notice u/s 274 dated 31 January 2015. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned AO wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated is bad in law, consequently the initiation of penalty along with the penalty proceedings are bad in law and deserves to be quashed 4. The Ld. AO erred in appreciating that variance in the TP adjustment shown by the Assessee and arrived by the AO is on account of mere disallowance due to difference of opinion with rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to OGE in resuming the erstwhile penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus the initiation by a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, requiring with no further proof. 5. Heard rival party's submission and arguments and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on record and considered the facts in the light of settled position of law and note that, there is much less dispute between rival parties that, initial show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO to assume the jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was of standard format. The said notice was indisputably issued without striking off inapplicable limb ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout sticking off irrelevant charge/limb was travelled to floor's of Hon'ble Apex Court on many occasion and recently in the case of 'CIT(LTU) Vs State Bank of India' [2024, 302 Taxman 365(SC)] wherein while dismissing the special leave petition of the Revenue, their Hon'ble Lordships vide para 2 categorically laid down that; '2. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case inasmuch as the High Court has followed CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423 359 ITR 565 (Karn), we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The reason being that the aforesaid judgment in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case (supra) has been relied upon by the High Court in CIT v. SSA's Emerald ....