9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his account also. See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 276/Pan./2017 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Ram Lal Negi, JM For the Appellant : Shri Y. V. Raviraj For the Respondent : Shri Shrinivas Nayak ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji, dated 21.08.2017, wherein penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act' for short) has been deleted for the assessment years 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court and High Court. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of the hearing, the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing officer restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment order in this case was passed on 28/12/2011 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order, in paragraph 4, the assessing officer observed that consequent to search, the assessee company had given a disclosure of ₹ 2,76,70,700/- for the period under consideration. On verification of the return of income and enclosures it is observed the assessee has disclosed its income at ₹ 3,61,96,710/-. Considering the fact that the company has filed the return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.O. in the assessment order has not specified as to whether he was satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or is guilty of concealment of the particulars of income. Thereafter, penalty notice was issued. In the said notice, in the printed format, the relevant limb was not specified as to whether the notice is being issued for the charge of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order, the penalty was levied with reference to the total income of ₹ 4,32,17,051/- as in the assessment order. In the penalty order, the A.O. held that penalty was being levied for concealment of income. 6. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, additional ground no.3 raised by the appellant for all the three assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed. 9. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the addition in this case has two components: Income returned by the assessee Rs.3,61,96,711/- Addition made by the A.O. Rs.70,20,340/- Total Rs.4,32,17,051/- As regards the levy of penalty on the returned income of ₹ 3,61,96,711/- is concerned, the same cannot be sustained as the penalty for concealment c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with regard to the addition made by the A.O. This is followed by a notice for the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in which the specific limb identifying the charge has not been identified. In such scenario, the learned CIT-A has relied upon several case laws from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Hon ble Apex Court that penalty levied without specification of charge is not sustainable. In this regard, reference has been made to following case laws: - CIT vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2015) 380 ITA (SC) - CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory Ors . (TS-936-HC-2012 (Kar)) - CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (IT Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
