9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and accordingly the penalty so initiated is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 744/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2018 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K.P. Garg, CA For The Respondent : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 30th October, 2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Noida for assessment year 2010 11 wherein vide the impugned order and Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the imposition of penalty of ₹ 8,21,000/- imposed under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities and submitted that since the assessee had not filed any appeal against the quantum additions, it was apparent that the assessee had accepted that there was concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on his part. The Ld. senior departmental representative also submitted that the plea of the assessee that the charge of penalty was not specified was a mere technical error and it did not take away the fact that the assessee had concealed its income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. We have carefully considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee, heard the Ld. senior departmental representative and have also perused the material on record. In the written submissions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar)has held as under: ( p) Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income 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. 5.2 The above-said judgment of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factor, reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has been followed by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271 (l)(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 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 dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
