TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Ys u/s 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and involve common issues, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 4172/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2016-17] 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act. 4. The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 for AY 2016-17 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by which the unrecorded cash income t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars of income. You are hereby requested to appear before me either personally or through a duly authorised representative at 11:00 AM on 05/05/2023 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through athorised representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. On such facts the CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under: 4.2.12 Issue of Notice: 4.2.12.1 The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 274 proposing for levy of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer suffers from insufficiency of charge proposed and leviable. The difference between 'concealment' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has been well analysed in the case of CIT Vs. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, ITA no. 211/Orissa/1995. It was held that the expression "concealed the particulars of income" and 'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income have not been defined either in Section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in detail although they may lead to the same effect, namely, keeping off a certain portion of income. The former is direct and the latter may be indirect in i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered under section 148/153A. The Gujarat High Court held that where an assessee voluntarily discloses income during search and the income is accepted without further investigation, it cannot be concluded that there was concealment. The court opined that the purpose of disclosure in response to section 153A notice is to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee, and if income is voluntarily disclosed, penalties should not apply. 10. We are of the considered view that in the given factual matrix, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeal are dismissed. ITA No. 4173/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2018-19] ITA No. 4174/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2017-18] ITA No. 41....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. A perusal of the aforementioned notice u/s 270A clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings, whether for mis-reporting or under-reporting. This is a legal requirement as the penal proceedings being separate from assessment proceedings, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to demonstrate under which limb he is proposing to levy of penalty while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. We find in the instant case, the notice u/s 270A also does not specify the transgression of specific provisions u/s 270A (2) or 270A(9). We are of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). 13. On identical circ....