9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] where the SLP filed [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] 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. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2915/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2021 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminating material found during the course of search in assessment framed under section 153A of the Act. 4. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty of ₹ 7,17,500^- on account of addition of ₹ 20 lakh under section 68, when the onus which lied upon the assessee stood fully discharged, particularly in penalty proceedings. 5. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty for concealing the income as well as for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 3. Return of income was filed on 16/2/2010 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice dated 28/11/2016 was issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order dated 31/3/2016, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 7,17,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 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 notice dated 29/12/2011 has not given a specific charge for penalty. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb 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 conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. From the notice dated 29/12/2011 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. There is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court 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 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated, 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 down by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon ble Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
