9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person to explain the charge whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. Manjunatha Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER ] and Pr. CIT Vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] we are of the considered view that when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. We are of the considered view that when the very initiation of the penalty by way of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. We find that the impugned notice issued and served is as under: 6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned notice shows that the Assessing Officer himself was not aware/certain as to whether he is issuing notice to initiate penalty proceedings either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. In our considered opinion, the extracted notice is vague and ambiguous, as the charge framed by the Assessing Officer is not clear and it is not possible for the person to explain the charge whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows - (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC), while dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 -73 Taxmann.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 by order dated 5th August 2016. 10. Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. Manjunatha Factory, CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows and Pr. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
