9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o above and in alternative, penalty is without any application of mind/satisfaction against the ratio of law laid down in case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kamatka) approved by hon ble Apex Court in case of SSA s EMRALD MEADOWS as the same is initiated by way of a printed penalty notice, without specifying any specific default either of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. I.T.A. No. 5117/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2014-15) 1. Because, the leaned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of ₹ 81,900/- imposed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the non disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was brought to the notice of Id. AO voluntarily by assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been found to be reliable, and rejected books of account invoking Section 145(3). The Assessing Officer worked out the business Income of the assesses by applying the provisions of Section 44AE and made addition of ₹ 25,20,000/- in income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, 1961 were also initiated in this case. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 25.03.2013 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order dated 28.03.2017 thereby imposing penalty of ₹ 7,56,000/- in A.Y. 2010-11. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act i.e. @ ₹ 3500 per month per truck. The CIT(A) in quantum appeal observed that the provisions of Section 44AE are not applicable to the assessee, still confirmed the additions. The assessee has not filed appeal as to avoid litigation and to buy peach of mind. The Ld. AR submitted that this does not contemplate that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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 up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadow. The extract of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
