9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. As held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows reported in [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] Thus we are inclined to hold that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO is ab initio void and allow the appeal of the assessee - I.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,877/- which is the minimum amount leviable in this case. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty by observing that the assessee, being a practicing medical professional was bound to maintain books of account as per the provisions of section 44AA. The CIT(A) has reproduced a part of the statement given by the assessee during the survey u/s. 133A on 19/03/2008 which showed that he had received ₹ 25,300/- by 9 PM on 19/03/2003 from 70 patients and 15 patients were waiting for consultation at that time. From this, the CIT(A) found that the total consultation amount would have been more than ₹ 30,000/- on the day of survey and if this amount is taken as his average collection for a day, the approximate amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) did not see any reason to delete or reduce the quantum of penalty and it is a fit case for imposition of penalty. Hence, he confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR raised additional ground stating that the order passed by the AO for levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was 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 Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 22/01/2004 wherein the AO had not specified w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1922 or were required to furnish under Section 139 (1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No____________________dated______________ or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said Section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No.______________________dated_________________ *have concealed the particulars of income or __________furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby request to appear before me, at 10 AM on 27.2.2004 and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
