9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee s appeal read as under:- 1. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case, penalty order passed u/s. 271(1) of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is invalid and bad in law as from the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act it is not discernible as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated fro furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and therefore, the impugned penalty order passed deserves to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of AO imposing the penalty of ₹ 1,18,965/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is highly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the case and bad at law. 3. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal. 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that no specific allegation as to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, I cancel the penalty in dispute. My aforesaid view is supported 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) 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 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no substantial question of law arises de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no substantial question of law arises decided in favour of assessee. ii) CIT Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows Hon ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO 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) 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 Decided in favour of assessee. 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. iv) ITAT, D Bench, New Delhi decision dated 26.5.2017 in the case of Rajender Jain vs. ACIT passed in ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on ---- ----200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
