9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer has issued notice dated 29.12.2016 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence cannot be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable as held by the various Court including Apex Court and hence, we have no hesitation to delete the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner - Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 7195/Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee has challenged the penalty order on various grounds. In the instant case, the AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing/ furnishing of particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for concealment by filling of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee challenged the Imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore we deem it appropriate to decide the legal issue involved in the instant case, instead of going into merits of the case. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led particulars of income? 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 upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VSMANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No: 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. 8. The penalty provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
