9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.584/LKW/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2019 - Shri. A. D. Jain, Vice President And Shri T. S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Swaran Singh, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. ORDER PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 13/6/2018, taking the following grounds: 1. That the impugned Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and unsustainable in law as the Ld. A.O. has not mentioned specific charge in the Statutory Notice issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the case was selected for scrutiny by I.T.O.-2(3), Kanpur in contravention to C.B.D.T. Circular and consequent order of CCIT, Kanpur, therefore the impugned Penalty Order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unsustainable in law. 7. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the Penalty when the Ld. A.O. was not sure on which limb of charge he levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty levied deserves to be deleted. 8. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied by the A.O. amounting to ₹ 4,15,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that from a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge, for which the penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not specific, as to whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently argued that it is a settled position of law that if the notice under section 274 is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any penalty levied on the basis of such a notice is bad in law and it is liable to be cancelled. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and decided that there was, therefore, no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter, an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. In CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory , [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn.), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically state the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
