9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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 FAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya reported as 216 ITR 660. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of the Act did not specify the exact limb/ charge for which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is levied. The notice is vague in nature since it mentions both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of the two breaches u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of penalty proceedings would not permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. Thus, the order imposing penalty was to be made only on the ground on which the penalty proceedings were initiated and it could not be a fresh ground of which the assessee had no notice. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently argued that the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and therefore, is a present judgment on the subject. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court therein had applied the findings of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra). The binding proposition, therefore, is that Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs under which penalty is imposable, has been contravened or indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
