Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (5) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER ] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down 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. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member, And Shri B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAM .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut in absence of books of account, it is difficult to establish the exact sales amount. In view of this, to avoid litigation, assessee computed profit at ₹ 17,88,240/- @ 8% on entire amount of ₹ 2,23,53,003/- deposited in bank accounts and filed revised computation of income. In view of this revised computation, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 14,54,230/-(₹ 17,88,240 - ₹ 3,34,010 already declared in the return) and completed the assessment. Similarly, one more addition of ₹ 16,847/- on account of bank interest not disclosed by assessee on the deposits in the bank, was also made by the Assessing Officer. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act were initiated by him on the ground that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evy of penalty, i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The notice is not valid in law. The notice does not state whether the Assessee is liable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Though the notice shows these options, neither of the options has been crossed out or so ticked as to make it clear which option the Assessing Officer is charging against the assessee. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s Manjunathan and Ginni Factory and ors 359 ITR 565. The above principal was further affirmed by the Apex Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s SSA Emerald Meadows. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 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. Further, the case law referred by the Ld. DR that of New Holland Tractor India (supra) will not be applicable in the present case as in that case the particular charge of Section 271 (1)(c) that of concealment of income was mentioned, but in present case that is not the case. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. 8. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 08th Day of May, 2020. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates