9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is sine-quo-non for issuance of show-cause notice and for want of such particulars, the Tribunal set-aside the order of the penalty levied on the Assessee. Questions of law being answered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we do not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the Chennai High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT Company Circle VI(4) Chennai in TCA No.876 878/2008 dated 23.04.2018? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the deletion of penalty without appreciating the fact that when the assessee participated in the entire proceedings, if a defect in the notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority initiated penalty proceedings in respect of aforesaid two claims and passed an order under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act levying penalty of ₹ 2,82,00,000/- against which the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belagavi (for short, CIT(A) ) which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id for the reason that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is also noticed that SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
