9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce dated 2.8.2016 was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed its reply dated 26.9.2016. However, the assessee has not preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the quantum addition. The AO in the penalty proceedings has observed that the assessee has not in any way substantiated the explanation furnished by it and assessee had no valid reason. Rather, the quantum and / or nature of the additions made suggest that it was certainly a case of gross and willful neglect on the part of the assessee. AO further observed that all the facts relating to the alleged additions made in question and thus material to the computation were not suomotu disclosed. Hence, he imposed the penalty of Rs. 13,74,146/- u/s. 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29.9.2016. Against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 01.3.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has argued that no specific show cause notice has been issued to the Assessee by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) 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 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- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no substantial question of law arises - decided in favour of assessee." ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) 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 - Decided in favour of assessee." 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue." iv) ITAT, 'D' Bench, New Delhi decision dated 26.5.2017 in the case of Rajender Jain vs. ACIT passed in ITA No. 6804/Del/2013 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/ concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In our view the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
