B.P. PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.03.2023, which is arising out of the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.

(A.Y. 2012-2013) B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the penalty has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the addition made, which has been deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) nonetheless the ld.CIT(Appeals) has made the addition on some different accounts. The ld. A.R. submitted that the addition by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not subject matter of penalty, whereas the addition deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was the subject matter of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the penalty deserves to be deleted on this account. Besides, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the show-cause notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for imposing the penalty, a copy of which filed at page no. 16 of the paper book, reveal that one of the limbs of penalty was not marked meaning thereby that the penalty notice has been issued in a standard format without application of mind in a mechanical manner. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty order passed on the basis of such mechanical/standard notice, which deprives the assessee from responding on the correct charge/limb on which the penalty was imposed and, therefore, the ld. A.R. prayed that the penalty imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer be deleted.

(A.Y. 2012-2013) B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material placed before us, we find that the notice dated 26.03.2015 was issued in a standard format, i.e. by mentioning both the limbs of penalty. In other words, it has been mentioned that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, which is not correct position of law. In our opinion, the ld. Assessing Officer has to issue the show-cause notice by mentioning the correct limb on the penalty was proposed to be levied, which is lacking in this case and thus the assessee was deprived from replying to the show-cause notice thereby violating the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law and is quashed.