9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in pursuance to the said notices were rightly reversed by ld CIT(A) - SEE M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] AND M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 88 & 89/CTK/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2020 - SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR ORDER Per C. M. Garg, JM These appeals have been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in pursuance to the said notices were righty reversed by ld CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565, which decision has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC). Therefore, it was his contention that there was no ambiguity and perversity in the orders of the ld CIT(A) to be interfered with and same may be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar) and also the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs SSA s Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). The relevant findings of the ld CIT(A) are as under: 4. I have carefully examined the assessment order, penalty order and submissions of the appellant. I find that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) Of the Income Tax Act,' 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty notice, the Assessing Officer charged the appellant for concealing the particulars of income. In the penalty order the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009-fO - Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(l)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(l)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - It relied on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 - Against order of Tribunal, revenue filed appeal before High Court Whether since matter was covered by above decision of Division Bench, there was no substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
