TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding penalty of Rs. 23,93,980/- levied in order dated 23.09.2024 under section 270A of the Act. 2. That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) has failed to appreciate that in absence of any specific show cause notice having been issued, the levy of penalty was wholly illegal. 2.1 That impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 and notice dated 30.08.2024 are vague notice and therefore penalty levied is untenable. 3. That furthermore that since no valid satisfaction was recorded in the order of assessment, penalty levied was otherwise too not in accordance with law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he original return of income under section 139(1) on 05-07-2022, declaring income of Rs. 47,42,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Before any specific show-cause notice could be issued to the assessee, the assessee filed a revised computation of income on 25- 11-2023. In the revised computation of income, the assessee included cash deposits in his two bank accounts aggregating of Rs. 38,36,500/-. The assessee also paid the due tax of Rs. 19,89,030/- by way of self assessment on the revised return of income, copy of revised computation and tax receipt is also placed on record. The cash deposits in the bank were left due to communication gap with tax advisor. The Assessing Officer/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (AO/ NFAC) passed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat "you have under-reported income, which is in consequence of misreporting thereof as per details given in the assessment order." The notice does not specify as to which clause of section 270A(9) is applicable. The notice is vague. The AO nowhere in his order adjudicated upon the bona fide conduct of the assessee and passed the penalty order imposing penalty at 200 per cent. No other addition was made in the assessment order. To support his various contentions, the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions. * Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT 145 taxmann.com 665 * Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP vs NFAC142 taxmann.com 38 * Anshul Specialty Molecules Ltd. vs. DCIT IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld AR of the assessee. We find that during assessment the AO issued show cause notice dated 26.10.2023. In response to such notice the assessee obtained adjournment till 25.11.2023. On 25.11.2023, the assessee filed detailed written reply, which is extracted in para-3.2 of assessment order. In the reply the assessee stated that he has already filed a revised computation of income on 25-11-2023. In the revised computation the assessee included cash deposits in his two bank accounts aggregating of Rs. 38,36,500/- and also paid tax of Rs. 19,89,030/-. The cash deposits in the bank were left due to communication gap with tax advisor. The cash deposit was part of certain capital receipt earned on sale of old furniture or part of sale of proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity under section 270AA. It was also held that there is no whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, made reference to the word "misreporting" by revenue in the penalty order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned penalty manifestly arbitrary. 7. We also find that Surat bench of Tribunal in Rajesh C Dalal (supra) while considering the similar grounds of appeal held that when the assessee during assessment filed revised computation of income an....