TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r short] dated 26/03/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) in spite of the fact that each and every ingredient of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) stood satisfied. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the action of the assessee in showing additional income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A in respect of undisclosed income was not a voluntary one. Had the search not taken place at the residential /busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A). 2. For that the notice issued U/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) was defective since the same did not specifically mention the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings. Moreover even in the order of assessment, AO towards the end, in a summary manner has stated "Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) r.w Expl 5A are being separately initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." No specific reason was mentioned by AO against the addition made nor was there any discussion made by AO regarding penalty proceedings upon the disclosure made. As such, the order imposing penalty is non-est and fit to be quashed. 3. For that facts in case of assessee are different than the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the course of penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 1,07,63,157/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% on the concealed income of Rs. 3,16,65,661/- on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the source of undisclosed income found during the course of search and seizure action conducted in the assessee's premises and where various documents in the form of loose sheets were found and seized. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not make any compliance to explain his case. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 26/03/2021, deleted the entire penalty by holding as under: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted on the disclosure made, as such, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is non-est and fit to be quashed. The ld. AR of the assessee also pointed out that this bench has already deleted penalty orders in several cases on this very grounds. 7. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue, on the other hand, justified the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It may be stated here that similar issue has already been dealt with by this Bench in its recent decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal vs CIT for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 in ITA No.255- 258/Ran/2023 dated 26th August 2024. In this case also, the assessee contested penalty order u/s 271(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 249 (S.C). 5. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in SSA Emeralds Meadows vs. CIT 242 taxmann 180 also echoed the view that if the charge of penalty is not specific in the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, meaning thereby if such notice is ambiguous as to whether penalty is levied for concealment of income or for providing of inaccurate particulars of income, then such notice is void ab initio and bad in law. This view of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed in CIT vs. SSA Emeralds Meadows (2016 )242 taxmann 180 (S.C). 6. We must reiterate and we feel appropriate in this context of adjudication a....