9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the penalty, the penalty order is not vitiated i.e. the penalty notice is valid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the levy of penalty even though partly by disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 confirming the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manju Natha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565." 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal mentioned hereinabove and pointed out to the ld. DR that the appeal can be decided ex parte since the quarrel is well settled in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard ib 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 Income tax officer Ward 12(1) New Delhi 6. This penalty notice was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A), though admitted the defect in the penalty notice, decided against the assessee as under: "6.1 By grounds of appeal No. 1 to 4, the appellant has challenged the validity of penalty proceedings on the ground that no specific charge i.e. whether the penalty was being proposed to be imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi In the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd ITA No. 475 of 2019 order dated 02.08.2019 has held as under: "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of inc me or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
