Assessee challenged penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of non-specification of charge of offence against assessee in penalty notice. Held: AO issued notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) in the standard printed form, i.e., without striking off irrelevant part and it was not discernible as to whether it was concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Accordingly, the notice was defective and penalty imposed on the basis of such notice could not be sustained.
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. & RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
Classic Developers v. ACIT
ITA No. 1585/Mum/2019
9 October, 2020
In favour of assessee.
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Uodal Raj Singh, D.R
Ravish Sood, J.M.
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-6, Mumbai, dated 11-12-2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), dated 29-9-2016 for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us :--
'1. That on facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 4,48,050 by learned assessing officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and void-ab-initio therefore same be quashed on the following stated grounds :--
(i) Appellant was never communicated either of twin exact charge envisaged in section 271(1)(c) for which impugned penalty has been imposed; and
(ii) In the assessment order directing to initiate the penalty proceeding and also in the impugned penalty order the alleged penalty has been imposed giving the finding that appellant has committed both the twin default which is against the provisions of law being both charges specified in section 271(1)(c) carries different meaning and operate in different sphere; and