9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the SLP filed by the Revenue 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 by the Hon ble High Court 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. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 5088/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2021 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. P. C. Yadav, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings were carried out u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3), by issue of notice dated 05.08.2013 to the appellant to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 10.09.2013, disclosing the total income as NIL. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for settlement u/s 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of a related person, related to the other assessee s of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as specified person u/s 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated 23.04.2013, wherein the Commission held that the assessee does not qualify for admission as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the amounts confirmed in first appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice dated 20/6/2014 has not given a specific charge for penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 20/06/2014 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in assessee s case. Besides this, the present case is relating to search conducted by the Revenue in the premises of the assessee, while the decision relied by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VSMANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnataka 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 Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 21st Day of JANU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
