9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned the specific charge in the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 274 r/w section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Penalty when the Ld. A.O. was not sure on which limb of charge he levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty levied deserves to be deleted. 3. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty imposed by the Ld. A.O. and invocation of Explanation 1 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while levying penalty on charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of such income, therefore, the impugned penalty order is unsusta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see invited our attention to the show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that from a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which the penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not specific, as to whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently argued that it is a settled position of law that if the notice under section 274 is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any penalty levied on the basis of such a notice is bad in law and it is liable to be cancelled. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) and decided that there was therefore no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming the issue in favour of the assessee. 2. 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory', [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn.). In this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
