9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yes of law. Notice issued by the AO under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/- Against the levy of above penalty assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. The assessee is now in appeal raising following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 1987-88; Assessment Year 1987-88 'l.The learned CIT(A)-I Indore has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271 (1 )(c) without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty is leviable u/s, 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 2,The learned CIT(A)-I Indore has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 5,56,050/- u/s 271 (1)(c) by relying on some judicial pronouncement, which are distinguishable. On the facts and in the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces issued u/s 271 (I)(c). 5. We find that similar grounds including additional grounds have been raised for Assessment Year 1988-89 to Assessment Year 1992-93 with the change of amount of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assesse taking up the legal ground about the validity of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act pointed out mistake in the penalty notice and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Kulwant Singh Bhatia dated 09.05.2018 (ITA 9 to 14 of 2018) wherein it was held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that similar type of notices except the change of assessment years have been issued u/s 274 of the Act for the years under appeal. To adjudicate this issue we will have to go through the impugned notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 1987-88 which has been placed in the paper book at page-11 and the same is reproduced below:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READWITH SECTION 271(1)(c) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 To, M/s. Panjwani Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 61, Keshar Bagh Road, Indore (M.P.) Sir/Madam, Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 1987-88 it appears to me that you :- have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice would not specify the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that Ld. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty enforced by the authority". 11. Similarly in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Ginning Factory, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically mention the ground in section 271(1)(c) whether concealment of income or for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. Sending printed form where all ground of section 271(1)(c) would not mention the specific requirement of law. Assessee should know the specific ground on which he has been charged otherwise opportunities of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
