9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Also as imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied - where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for concealment of income. 5. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee filed before us copy of notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2016, copy of which is placed on record and pointed out there from that in the said notice, the Assessing Officer has stated as under: Where in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09, it appears to me that you:- ................ have concealed the particulars of your income or....... furnish inaccurate particulars of such income. 7. He submitted that it is not clear from the said notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 10. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 26.09.2016 levied penalty of ₹ 1,20,010/-. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;) 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 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX - VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, 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 in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 12. Bare perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
