9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case is not correct in law as the order passed by the AO was bad in law and was liable to be annulled. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances of the case was not correct in law in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 imposed by the AO. 3. That the appellant craves to add, alter, amend, and withdraw any of the foregoing grounds at the time of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a property dealer in real estate and has done some business with M/s Nitishree Group of cases and related concerns. A survey operation u/s 133 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 17.2.2006. During the survey, some documents were impou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for penalty u/s. 271 read with Section 274 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was ambiguous and vague in as much as it is stated both concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of reference, the copy of Assessment order and copy of Notice was filed before the Bench. She further stated that entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated as the notice itself is not in accordance with law and in order to support her contention, she placed the reliance on the following decisions, by filing the copies thereof. - Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - Apex Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvenience, the relevant para no. 5.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected." 8. Keeping in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In our view the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(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 deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
