9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. It would, therefore, show that notice issued before levy of the penalty is bad in Law and it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in its recent decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] 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 conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Legal Heir of the Assessee in which A.O. has mentioned as under : Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 3.1. He has submitted that A.O. has not specified as to for which limb penalty proceedings have been initiated whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, levy of the penalty is illegal and bad in Law. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The A.O. while making the additions on account of short term / long term capital gains initiated the penalty proceedings under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed 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 Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
