Tribunal held that, no proper charge was levied by the AO at any of the three stages i.e while passing the assessment order, while issuing the jurisdictional penalty notice and while passing the penalty order. Relying on the Apex Court’s Judgement in the case of CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC) where in it was held that jurisdictional notice issued by AO u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify that under which limb of S. 271(1)(c) of the Act were penalty proceedings initiated. The Tribunal concluded that the AO’s act was a serious lapse in not fixing the charge clearly, while assuming jurisdiction to levy penalty and hence, levy of penalty was not justified. (ITA No. 5006/Del/2013) (AY. 1997-98)
Aditya Chemicals Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 62 ITR 150 (Delhi) ( Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment- The AO did not specify under which limb had the penalty been imposed i.e whether it was on account of concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, then penalty was not sustainable. [ S.274]