9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 21.9.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee s appeal read as under:- 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) -18 New Delhi, erred in law in upholding the order of the Ld AO, imposing penalty of ' 1,48,329 (One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Nine only), U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation 1 thereto, levied without recording proper satisfaction in terms of provision of section 271(1) (c) read with section 274 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1.1 That the impugned penalty order of the AO is invalid and void abinitio, since framed in absence of recording of specific satisfaction or levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. 1.2 That the Ld CIT (A), though appreciating the fact that no specific satisfaction has been recorded by Ld. AO., in an arbitrary manner, on wholly erroneous, illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Del/2014. - Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - Apex Court decision in the case of CIT Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith the provisions of law as well as the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. WE noe that no specific allegation as to the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars has been levied by the AO in the notice dated 29.03.2013 issued by him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placed at APB-17 which clearly shows that the same is the standard format of the notice and AO has just ticked on the option of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. We further note that in the penalty order vide para no. 10, the AO has mentioned that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby imposed for concealment of income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. iii) ITAT, A Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 5788 to 5790/Del/2014 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. We have also perused the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on --------200------ and issued a Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 SSA 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
