9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - has not been taken into account as a concealment by the Revenue authorities. The concealment cannot be in part when the addition was made in totality without any specific limb mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) which is now deleted in part by the appellate authorities. Therefore, this issue is debatable issue. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] will be applicable in the present case - thus in the present case which limb of Section 271(1)(c) has been invoked by the revenue authorities is not clear penalty cannot be imposed - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out jurisdiction. (ii) That in absence of recording of specific satisfaction or levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the notice u/s 274 and the consequential order is invalid and void-ab-initio. 3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified confirming penalty of ₹ 19,56,977/- on the alleged ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars in terms of provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) That the issue of disallowance is still pending for adjudication before Hon ble Delhi High Court, there could be no presumption of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is relating to limitation which is not pressed. As regards Ground No.2, the Ld. AR submitted that notice u/s 271(1) r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.12.2010 did not specify the particular charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The Ld AR further submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (ITA No.475/2019 vide order dated 02.08.2019) held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the penalty proceedings had been initiated. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention raised by the assessee regarding notice issued did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) does not sustain. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 510. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the materials available on record. From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it can be seen that the notice did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) has been taken into account while passing penalty order. In fact, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of concealment of income to the extent of ₹ 63,33,260/- which was confirmed by the appellate authorities i.e. by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. In respect of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) while confirming the order of the Hon ble Madras High Court, it is pertinent to note that in the said decision both limbs of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealed particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were present and the finding of the Hon ble High Court is clear that when the penalty order is based on both the limbs of section, the notice cannot be held as defective notice. But in the present case which limb of Section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
