9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly shows that taxability of ALV in respect of vacant commercial/self-occupied assets was a highly debatable issue and two views were possible. Since the assessee has taken a plausible view, the same cannot be considered as filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. Defective notice - Notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74,162/-, which was subsequently revised at ₹ 1,19,91,36,679/- . The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Returned income was assessed at ₹ 1,25,87,20,383/- after making additions on account of : i) ALV of vacant commercial/ self-occupied assets - ₹ 5,90,67,704/- ii) Addition on account of disallowance of amortized cost of land in respect of wind power projects - ₹ 5,16,000/- 5. Quantum additions were challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A), vide his order dated 27.11.2014, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 10. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. Taxability of ALV was highly debatable and, in fact, right from Assessment Year 1998-99 and till such time, while the Assessing Officer was making similar additions, the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal were consistently deleting the same year after year. It is not in dispute that it is only by order dated 31.10.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows ITA No. 380 of 2015. The relevant findings of the judgement read as under: Notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of 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 issue was decided in favour of the assessee. 16. Respectfully following the binding decisions of the Hon ble High Courts [supra], Ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
