9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction u/s 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to passed the order levying the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.- 6971/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2022 - Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon ble President And Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM. Aggrieved by the order dated 28 1999-2000 17 in appeal No. 10/16-17/2444 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi ( Ld. CIT(A) ) in the case of M/s EAIL Ltd ( the assessee ) for the assessment year 2011-12, confirming the penalty of ₹ 1, 72, 400/-by the learned Assessing Officer by order dated 28/3/2016, the assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case mystery for the disposa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also assessee had taken similar defences and the main plank of argument as could be seen from the impugned order is that the levy of penalty on the basis of notice which is vague and illegal cannot be sustained. Ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that an examination of assessment order reveals that the learned Assessing Officer duly reached the satisfaction for initiation of penalty by applying the mind, which could be inferred from the assessment order itself. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the notice issued by the learned Assessing Officer specifies that the penalty under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act was to be levied and, therefore, mere failure to specify in specific terms, or failure in striking out the requisite in subclause in a notice does not make the penalty action bad. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 in support of his finding that non-striking off of inaccurate particulars or concealed income in the notice does not merit consideration to hold that the learned Assessing Officer did not assume jurisdiction validly. 6. Assessee preferred this appeal ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , while noticing the addition of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar)dealt with this issue. 10. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). Vide paragraph 60, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :- 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue challenging the aforesaid judgement of the High Court was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court holding : We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. In the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance company limited case ITA No 475/2019 and batch order dated 02/08/2019, Hon ble Delhi High Court, upheld the view taken by the Tribunal basing on the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) wherein it was held that the notice issued by the learned Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
