SHRI SANTOKH SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAPURTHALA

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the order passed by the worthy CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar, dated 27.08.2018, is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the worthy CIT(A), Jalandhar was erred in law and on facts in upheld the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction while issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. That the worthy CIT(A), Jalandhar was erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) and without

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty of Rs.2,07,867/- as against the penalty of Rs.4,72,028/- levied by the AO.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in the penalty notice had not specified the specific charge for which the penalty has been levied. Our attention was drawn towards the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 12.01.2016 (copy of which is placed on record). The reliance was placed on the decisions of various Courts as cited before the ld. CIT(A). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi in the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT, CC-I,

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi in the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT (supra) wherein one of us (Vice President) is a co-signatory in the said order dated 22.11.2017, it has been held as under: “8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 28.12.2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadows. The extract of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA’ Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(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 Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.

Since, the facts of the present case are similar to the aforesaid referred to case. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 22.11.2017, the impugned penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 16/01/2019)