Notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
13. Considering the facts of thecasein totality, in the light of judicial decisions referred to hereinabove, I set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 57,933/-.
Sec. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961— Penalty - The assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) in holding that even if there was a defect in the notice of the penalty, the penalty order is not vitiated i.e. the penalty notice is valid. A perusal of the impugned notice clearly shows that the AO did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings. Moreover, the penal proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the AO to demonstrate under which limb he is proposing levy of penalty. Notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, ITAT while allowing the appeal of the assessee deleted the impugned penalty. - GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 129 (ITAT-DELHI)
Notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
13. Considering the facts of thecasein totality, in the light of judicial decisions referred to hereinabove, I set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 57,933/-.
Sec. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961— Penalty - The assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) in holding that even if there was a defect in the notice of the penalty, the penalty order is not vitiated i.e. the penalty notice is valid. A perusal of the impugned notice clearly shows that the AO did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings. Moreover, the penal proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the AO to demonstrate under which limb he is proposing levy of penalty. Notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, ITAT while allowing the appeal of the assessee deleted the impugned penalty. - GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD V/s ITO - [2020] 23 ITCD Online 129 (ITAT-DELHI)