2025 (10) TMI 1377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A)"], which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 23.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notices issued on 31.01.2013 & 31.08.2015 u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act as invalid on the ground that the specific limb for which the penalty was proposed to be levied was not ticked in the said notices. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ound that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is ambiguous in nature as the relevant limb for which the penalty was proposed to be levied was not specified, and thus, such notice is invalid. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("learned 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, the learned AR, by referring to the penalty notice dated 31.08.2015 issued und....