9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is 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. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] Penalty proceedings initiated by the AO is void ab initio and allow the appeal of the assessee. Since we have quashed the penalty proceedings itself, we refrain from adjudicating the other grounds of appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of any definite omission or concealment found out from the records of the appellant. 5. The learned first appellate authority erred in ignoring the fact that the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposed for concealment of income. 6. The learned first appellate authority erred in ignoring the law that the show cause notice u/s 274 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed, whether for concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. And such other grounds, arguments or points that may be submitted, urged or enlarged at the time of hearing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner as to the importance of this ground. 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find bona fide reasons in the act of the assessee in not raising the additional ground on an earlier occasion by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) wherein it was held that Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow additional ground to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we admit the additional ground for adjudication. 4. Coming to the merits of the additional ground, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued for imposing penalty u/s. 274 of the Act which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income-tax) Central Circle-1, Trivandrum The Ld. AR submitted that the show cause notice u/s. 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed, whether for concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. it was submitted that the Assessing Officer had not struck off the irrelevant portion of the penalty notice which was not applicable to the assessee and does not clearly mention whether he proposed to levy penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4.1 The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2015) (11) TMI 1620 that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is 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. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows reported in (2016) (8) TMI 1145. 7. In view of the above discussion, we are incli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
