9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact, are in the standard pro forma wherein the irrelevant clauses have not been struck off. This indicates non application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing the penalty notices. The penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the AO is directed to delete the penalty in both the cases. - Decided in favour of the assessee - ITA No. 6373/Del /2013, ITA No. 6374/Del /2013 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Shri B.P. Jain, Accountant Member and Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member Appellant by : S/Shri Sanat Kapur, Kislay Parashar, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent the printed form of notice without crossing out the irrelevant portions. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act there are two limbs under which the penalty can be imposed and the Assessing Officer has to necessarily specify as to under which limb the penalty is being sought to be imposed i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR further submitted that since in both the notices, both the charges were mentioned in the notices and the irrelevant portions were not crossed out, the notices were not as per the requirements of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 5.1 The said above-said judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factor (supra) has been followed by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs SSA s Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (kar) and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under- 2. This appeal has been f iled raising the following substantial questions of law, Whether, omission if assessing off icer to explicitly mention that penal ty proceedings are be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered, in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, 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 in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5.2 Further, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
