9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 10,52,593/-,without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence" Additional Ground: a) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settlement application 30,00,000 (ii) Unexplained cash credits 1,79,56,880/- (iii) Commission paid to secure unexplained cash credits 5,38,706/- The assessee filed appeal against all the above heads of additions. In the appeal against the quantum additions, the following amounts were confirmed in first appeal. A.Y Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in settlement application 30,00,000 (ii) Unexplained cash credits 2,26,000/- (iii) Commission paid to secure unexplained cash credits 1,79,569/- After giving effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the penalty proceedings had been initiated. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the penalty order is very clear that the penalty is imposed on concealment of income and, therefore, merely not mentioning the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) will not make the penalty order bad in law. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order, Penalty order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnataka High Court in M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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(K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
