TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961 ["the Act"] arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 15.03.2019 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The appeal is delayed by 55 days for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit was filed as per which the assessee was suffering from prolonged illness and was bed-ridden. In support, copy of the medial reports and the fitness certificate issued by the Government hospital are filed with condonation petition. It is thus, requested that delay may be condoned as the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee as he was medically unfit during the period from 07.10.2023 to 23.07.2025. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 07.11.2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned penalty order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("A.O.") u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") imposing a penalty of Rs. 31,65,780/- is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the show cause notice dated 30.11.2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, does not specify whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly legal in nature wherein assessee has challenged the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as in the notice issued limb under which penalty proceedings initiated was not specified. Since this fact is verifiable from the perusal of notice filed by the assessee at Page 1 of the Paper Book, therefore, we admit the same for adjudication. 10. Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the notice dated 30.11.2016 issued for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is observed that AO has not specified whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her notice in this case was issued in stereotyped manner without applying his mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a wellaccepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that the AO has failed to record the satisfaction about any limb at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby, deleted. 16. Since we allowed additional ground of appeal, the other Grounds of appeal became academic hence, not adjudicated. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.02.2026. ============= Document 1 1 lon' Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad Room No-206, 2nd Floor, Income Tax Office CGO Complex-1, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad (UP)-Ph.2705980 ....