MR. KAILASH P SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In this case, the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act

The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty on the grounds raised before him. However, the assessee has also raised following additional ground:– “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the penalty proceedings initiated in terms of notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 dated 08.01.2014 is bad in law inasmuch the said notice does not specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, and consequently, the impugned penalty order is also bad in law. The appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned penalty order be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the impugned penalty order is bad in law insomuch as the Ld. Assessing Officer finally imposed penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas the charge made out against the appellant in the relevant assessment order was for both concealment of particulars of income and furnishing particulars of such income. The appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned penalty order be quashed.”

However, the learned CIT(A) though has mentioned that the above ground being legal are admitted, he has not adjudicated upon the same. Hence, in the interest of justice, I remit the additional grounds raised to the file of the learned CIT(A) who shall adjudicate the additional grounds raised before him. I also make it clear that the assessee has not raised any ground on the merits of the confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the 3 Shri Kailash P. Shah (HUF)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.11.2019