9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) of the Act without giving any opportunity to the assessee at the appellate stage i.e. before the CIT(A). Further, it is noticed that in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act the specific limb was also not mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the decision in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as well as decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Limited [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] are applicable in the present case. It has been held in these decisions that notice issued by the Assessing should specify which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g concealing particulars of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Firstly, we are taking up the facts of ITA No.1448/Ahd/2019 as all the appeals are filed on identical issues. The assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after recording the reasons for the belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessment was completed on 21.12.2016 thereby determining total income of Rs.11,36,783/- making various additions. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery much submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and quoted in the written submissions in both the orders. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not at all verified this fact and simplicitor imposed penalty on concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without giving any opportunity to the assessee at the appellate stage i.e. before the CIT(A). Further, it is noticed that in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act the specific limb was also not mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
