9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue has been dismissed [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] 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 wherein held 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 income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 08/03/2011 at an income of ₹ 6,11,12,196/- and additions were made as under:- (i) disallowance u/s 14A ₹ 76,54,478/- (ii) disallowance on depreciation on non compete fees of ₹ 92,28,515/- (iii) disallowance on depreciation on computer accessories of ₹ 64,476/- (iv) disallowance of rental income treating as business income of ₹ 41,910/- The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) vide order dated 30/1/2013 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by issuing notice dated 08/03/2011 for hearing on 08/04/2011. Further, notice dated 11/02/2014 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Pri. CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Companies Limited 2019 (8) TMI 409. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that there is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 08/03/2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadows. The extract of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) 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 by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon ble Delhi High Court 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 Cotto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
