9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. Imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.3175/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri B R Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment by taking the salary of ₹ 19,78,447 received by the assessee from both the companies. 4. In respect of the addition made as aforesaid, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by observing in the order of assessment by observing as follows:- This attracts penalty under Sec.271(1)( c) of Income Tax Act. Even in the order of Assessment, the AO did not specify as to whether the Assessee is guilty of concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The AO issued a show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act (copy of the same is at page-4 of the paper book filed by the Assessee). In the said show cause notice also the AO has not mentioned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate particulars of income or concealed particulars of such income . He drew our attention to a decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 218 Taxman 423 (Kar.) wherein it was held that if the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act does not specify as to the exact charge viz., whether the charge is that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income by striking out the irrelevant portion of printed show cause notice, then the imposition of penalty on the basis of such invalid show cause notice cannot be sustained. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
