Case Law Details
Dr. Subash Chandra Jena Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) without any specific allegation is justified in law?
ITAT stated that the AO has simply initiated penalty proceedings stating therein that penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated on the differential amount disclosed in the return of income filed u/s.153A of the Act, however, in the penalty order, the AO has used both the expression i.e. penalty is imposed by reason of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended by the ld. AR that both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. However, the CIT(A) without considering the above factual aspect, has upheld the action of the AO. Therefore, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in all the appeals under consideration deserves to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the two separate orders of CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, i.e. one dated 11.12.2018 for the assessment years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 and other dated 28.11.2018 for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
