9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty amounting of Rs. 2,47,955/- levied by the Assessing officer. 1.2. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the penalty amounting to Rs. 2,47,955/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act is not excigible in law, as the appellant has neither concealed particulars of income and nor furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in facts and in law, in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,47,955/- failing to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for initiating penalty for concealment of income was vague and not specific for which, the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 21.12.2016 is reproduced herein below: "F. No. ITO/WARD-3(3)/2016-17/ Dated: 21.12.2016 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX 271(1) (c) M/s. Ashoka Machine Tools International Pvt. Ltd. B-68/3, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi 110052 In the course of proceedings before the AO for the assessment year 2009-10 it appears to me that you:- have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5. You are hereby given an more opportunity to appear before me: at 11:00 A.M. on 12,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his fact situation we shall refer to the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. 7. 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 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not sustainable." 8. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Considered the question of law as to,- "Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 9. And the Hon'be High Court answered the same in favour of the assessee observing that: "The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify under which limb of section 271(l)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court read that,- "21. The Respondent had challenging the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
