9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has not struck-off the irrelevant portion in the notice i.e., whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for both. In view of the same, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER ] a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as under: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty an amount of ₹ 2,27,204/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. Without considering the fact the Assessing Officer not mentioned in which limb the penalty u/s.274 r.w.s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. In support of his contentions, the ld Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Anr. Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (in SLP No. 11485/2016 dated 05-08-2016) reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 Supreme Court, wherein the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Anr. Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) and also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (cited Supra), the penalty order passed by the AO is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2020 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
