9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings - it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to specify the relevant limb so as to make the Assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. Having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued the notices referred above under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceeding has 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 can not be considered valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore we are of the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000/- and that the Assessee has included this building in the block of asset during the year under consideration. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee was not entitled for double deductions on the same property as per the provisions of the Act and since the Assessee had already claimed depreciation on the said property, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by Assessee for repair and maintenance of Rs.22,50,000/- u/s. 24 of the Act. 2.1 The second addition made by the Assessing Officer was of Rs.11,50,000/- u/s. 40(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source on payments of 20,000 Euro (equivalent to Rs.11,50,654/-) made to a foreign entity, namely, Equinox Deutschland GMBH for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs.10,50,800/- equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on both the above additions totalling to Rs.34,00,650/- for concealment of its incomeand furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income. 3. Being aggrieved with the penalty order, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order, though affirmed the penalty imposed with reference to disallowance of Rs.11,50,000/- on account of non deduction of tax at source, however with regards to the penalty imposed qua addition of Rs.22,50,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 24 of the Act, accepted the alternative plea of the Assesseeto the effects that the higher of the two deductions, i.e., depreciation of Rs.10,45,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular limb and finally vide penalty order dated 30-06-2014 imposed the penalty on both of the limbs. 7.1 The Assessee by way of raising the plea which is legal in nature, challenged the Imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notices itself, therefore we deem it appropriate to decide the legal issue involved in the instant case first, before dwelling into the merits of the case. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the Assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;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 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. 8.1 The Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder 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. 8.3 The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
