9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] has held that the notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) as to whether it is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Notice under section 274 was on the printed format. The AO has not given any specific charge. Therefore, the penalty proceedings as initiated are vitiated for want of procedural compliance. Thus the penalty order is quashed being bad in law. This ground of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 391/JP/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - Shri Kul Bharat, JM And Shri T.R. Meena, AM Assessee b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Act) vide order dated 30th November, 2009. While framing the assessment, the AO initiated penalty proceedings in respect of the additions made by him. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty of ₹ 1,65,000/- on the trading additions made on account of cessation of liability by invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. 4. Apropos Ground No. 1, ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the penalty order is bad in law in view of the fact that notice as issued by the AO for imposing penalty does not specify the specific charge. The ld. Counsel submitted that the AO ought to have given a specific reason for imposing the penalty. He drew our attention to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as well as judicial pronouncements discussed above, it is established that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income to the extent of ₹ 5,39,186/- [₹ 50,000/- on account of Trading and ₹ 4,89,186/- on account of addition u/s 41(1)] within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) and, therefore, a penalty of ₹ 1,65,000/- is imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) on the concealed income as per working given below :- Returned Income ₹ 2,44,230/- Concealed Income ₹ 5,39,186/- Tax so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT. In the case in hand also, as admitted by the revenue, the notice under section 274 was on the printed format. The AO has not given any specific charge. Therefore, the penalty proceedings as initiated are vitiated for want of procedural compliance. Thus the penalty order is quashed being bad in law. This ground of the assessee is allowed. 5. Ground No. 3 relates to imposition of penalty. Since we have already quashed the penalty order, therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty. 6. Ground No. 4 is general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
