Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

we hold that the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer U/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is without specifying the charge for which the notice was issued as was non striking off of the inappropriate limb on account of non-application of mind and therefore the penalty proceedings initiated are bad in law. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As we have held that the penalty be deleted on the preliminary point the other arguments raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not being dealt with as it becomes only academic. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961— Penalty — Assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals)dated 05.12.2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the initiation of penalty proceedings is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not specified the limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied.  The assessee referring to the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act submitted that the Assessing Officer is not clear as to the charge for which the penalty is initiated i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars.       
On findings of facts tribunal held that the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer U/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is without specifying the charge for which the notice was issued as was non striking off of the inappropriate limb on account of non-application of mind and therefore the penalty proceedings initiated are bad in law. Thus, tribunal direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. --- SHRI JAGDISH P. PUROHIT vs. ITO.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 34 (MUM)