9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 3705/DEL/2014, ITA No. 3757/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2019 - Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member And Ms Suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expenditures allegedly incurred by the Appellant on premises provided to its senior executives. (c) Disallowance of the interest paid to head office and foreign branches of the bank situated outside India. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is neither guilty of concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with respect to any of the three issues referred to in ground no. (1) above and accordingly the Hon ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act with respect to each of the said issues. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee against the Assessment Order was disposed off by the CIT(A) vide order dated 17/12/1999. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide order dated 3/4/2003 and 13/1/2003 passed the relevant orders. In the meantime, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated. The assessment order under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated was not specified. This objection was raised during the penalty proceedings by the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order thereby imposing penalty of ₹ 2,03,45,865/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee on premises provided to its senior executives and disallowance of the interest paid to head office and foreign branches of bank situated outside India. During the regular assessment proceedings, the assessee has given all the details to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. Thus, the authorities cited by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. Thus, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee, then the same should be proceeded. But in the present case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of 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. The extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se decisions are of non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. The decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court relied on by the Ld. DR is not applicable in the present case as the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. Since there is no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue, therefore, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that if two views are available on a particular issue, the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Limited (supra). We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
