2016 (3) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inst the order of the CIT (A)-11, Mumbai dated 5.11.2012 for the assessment year 2002-2003. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- "1. a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,00,439/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ITO. b) He erred in holding that cross-examination of the br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the case in hand stands covered by series of decisions of the ITAT read with the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn.). In this regard, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable if the AO is not clear in his mind about the applicable limb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, we find, the applicable limb of clause-(c) of section 271(1) of the Act ie "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealment of income" is kept blank by the AO while issuing the notice. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) is squarely appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X