9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadows. [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] - decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 4325/DEL/2016 ( A.Y 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 22-11-2017 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions/disallowances of ₹ 41,125/-. 3. The assessee filed its return of income declaring income of ₹ 27,15,360/- on 6/10/2010. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made on 28/12/2011 at an income of ₹ 38,48,450/-. While completing the assessment the A.O made additions in the total income of the assessee. The A.O also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. The Ld. AR produced the notice dated 28.12.2011 issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR further submitted that the matter is covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. M/s SSA Emerald Meadows wherein the decision of CIT Vs. Manju Nath Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 was considered. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(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(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 Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
