9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,50,530/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 13,88,600/- without considering the facts that the appellant company has not concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. 3. That on the facts the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that all relevant facts and figures were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and in the books of accounts and the same was produced at the time of assessment proceedings and therefore the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income with the intention of suppressing the taxable income does not arise. 4. The Ld CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) and CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 23.03.2016 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 wrong claim of depreciation which was a bonafide mistake on part of the assessee for which it cannot be said that it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. This issue is squarely covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and 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 (supra) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
