9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and facts of the case and hence unsustainable. 2. The learned first appellate authority erred in treating the estimated addition as concealed income and on that presumption has imposed penalty for concealment of income. 3. The learned first appellate authority ought to have seen that the assessment was completed on estimating the gross receipts and when estimation is resorted to the question of concealment does not arise at all. 4. The learned first appellate authority ought to have seen that the first appellate authority has given an ad-hoc reduction of 10% from the difference in the gross receipts pointed out by the assessing authority. This itself would show that the assessment was done on the basis of estimation and not on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeals were left out to be raised. These grounds are legal grounds and all the necessary material relating to these grounds are already on record. No new facts are to be investigated. The petitioner is given to understand that this ground is very crucial to the adjudication of the case and he would be put to irreparable loss if the ground is not admitted. Though the issues relating to these grounds were raised in the written submission made before the first appellate authority, the same were not considered for adjudication. These grounds could not be raised earlier on account of the ignorance of the petitioner as to the importance of this ground." 3.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961 . If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered, before any such order is made under section 271. sd/- (Assistant Commissioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued u/s. 274 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether 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 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
