9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings and delete the penalties in all the appeals - 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.5118, 5119, 5120 & 5121/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate. For the Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BENCH : All the appeals by Assessee are directed against different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, Dated 29.06.2017, for the A.Ys. 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, challenging the levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in which the A.O. has mentioned as under : Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished in accurate particulars of such income. 4.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also referred to page-6 of the PB whereby information under RTI Act was sought with regard to satisfaction note recorded by A.O. under section 153C of the I.T. Act and referred to page-14 of the PB in which it is reported that no such information is available in the Office of the Assessing Officer. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that the above notices issued before levy of the penalty to be bad in Law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the 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. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
