Considering the legal position and the action of the AO in passing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) shows that there is non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable and respectfully follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and cancel the order of the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
Sec. 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961—Penalty— Levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied - The standard proforma of notice u/s 274 without striking of the relevant clauses would lead to inference of non-application of mind by the AO and in this case, AO is not sure whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and in such a situation, the levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind, thus, the action of the AO in passing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) shows that there is non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable - P.A. USMAN V/s ITO - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Considering the legal position and the action of the AO in passing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) shows that there is non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable and respectfully follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra) and cancel the order of the AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
Sec. 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961—Penalty— Levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied - The standard proforma of notice u/s 274 without striking of the relevant clauses would lead to inference of non-application of mind by the AO and in this case, AO is not sure whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and in such a situation, the levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind, thus, the action of the AO in passing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) shows that there is non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable - P.A. USMAN V/s ITO - [2019] 75 ITR (TRIB) 001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)