ANAND PRAKASH KOTHARI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, AHMEDNAGAR

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee was liable for concealing particulars of income and that the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the concealment penalty of Rs.4,54,603/-. The Ld. Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) has reached these conclusions without even going into the merits of the additions made to the income of assessee by the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings initiated in this case were illegal, bad in law and ab-inio-void, because the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge/limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for which the penalty was to be levied and the show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act was issued for concealing the particulars of income OR for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ambiguity in the show cause notice about the charge/limb for levying the penalty has seriously impinged upon the principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has ticked the charge/limb of concealment of particulars of income in the notice under section 274 of Income Tax Act r.w.s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act in this case were valid proceedings. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the penalty appeal of the assessee even though the quantum appeal in this case were still pending before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune and a specific request was made by the assessee vide letters dated 19-09-2016 and 08-06-2017 to keep the penalty proceedings pending till the disposal of the quantum appeal by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has completely ignored the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of R. B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (2016) 65 taxmann.com 293 (Bombay) in which it has been held that where the appeal of the assessee against the additions made in the assessment was pending before the Tribunal the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act is premature, illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the concealment penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction, as it has been passed when the appeal of the assessee against the additions made in the Assessment Order was still pending before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.