TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023, and upheld by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) vide order passed u/s. 250 Dt. 13.08.2025, is contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law. 2. The penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and upheld by the Learned CIT(A) is bad in law and void ab initio, as the notice issued under the said section is vague and fails to specify whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's specific legal ground challenging the validity of the defective notice u/s. 271(1)(c) without proper adjudication and in disregard of binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring that under identical circumstances interest paid to APIIC had been accepted by the same Assessing Officer in earlier assessments completed u/s 143(3)/147 for AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08, and even after revision u/s 263. Having accepted the claim on identical facts, the Assessing Officer cannot now turn around and allege concealment of income of the interest paid to APIIC for the purpose of penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clear that APIICL does not fall under the category of State Industrial Investment Corporation. The Assessing Officer ["in short "Ld.AO"] vide order dated 30.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and following the decision of the Ld. CIT in assessee own case for the A.Y. 2005-06, A.Y.2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 under section 263 of the Act held that APIICL is a Public Financial Institution / State Industrial Investment Corporation, and therefore the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable. Accordingly, the unpaid interest amounting to Rs. 19,54,88,630/- was disallowed under section 43B of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. In further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under section 43B of the Act, which was also upheld by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the year under consideration in quantum proceedings. 4. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration and vide order dated 26.12.2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, a penalty amounting to Rs. 6,34,26,285/- was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir respective orders that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. Assessee could not produce any logical reply on the issues therefore reply submitted by the assessee is rejected. Further, during the course of Penalty proceedings, necessary notices/letters were issued and delivered on appellant on the given e-mail ID time to time. The Assessing officer has in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT act disallowed the unpaid interest of Rs. 19,54,88,630/- to APIIC Ltd and added back in the appellant's income considering it as concealment of particulars of Income. Thereafter it is seen that order u/s 250 was. passed in this case by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) vide appellate order TBA/NFACIS/250/2023- 24/1053960802(1) Dated 26/06/2023 wherein Learned CIT (A) confirms the AO's assessment order and dismissed all the grounds of appeal of the appellant. 9.6 Further reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Jyothirmooy Yamsani [TS-568-ITAT-2017(HYD)]. The Judgment was passed by the ITAT in 2017 after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the appellant as discussed above in para 9.4. The Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one of the phrase cannot be considered as the notice to be invalid. From the Assessment order, it is clearly established that the appellant has evaded tax wilfully and Hon'ble ITAT has also upheld the said addition. Hence, considering the above facts, I am of the view that the contention raised by the appellant with respect to the validity of the penalty notice is not acceptable and hence Dismissed." 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"], inter alia, submitted that the penalty in the present case has been levied without specifying the head under which the same has been levied. In this regard, Ld.AR, by referring to the penalty notice dated 30.01.2015 issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, submitted that the Ld. AO has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". 7. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld. DR"] by vehemently relying upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), on this issue, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty o....