9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court, as well as the judgments of the Karnataka High Court. In Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v Ms Minu Bakshi [ 2022 (7) TMI 1307 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the issue concerning the penalty notice not indicating the precise limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the assessee was proceeded came up for consideration wherein held that the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)( c) 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. Decided in favour of assessee. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 crore, in line with the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act was utilized for granting donations to other charitable trusts. 8. It is in this backdrop that the respondent/assessee s assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and its assessed income was pegged at Rs. 19,02,18,230/-. 9. Evidently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the respondent/assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the course of the assessment proceedings. 10. A show-cause notice (SCN) under Section 271(1)(c) dated 19.12.2011 of the Act was served on the assessee. The service it appears was effected on 03.03.2014. 10.1 In response to the said notice, a communication dated 12.03.2014 was filed on behalf of the respondent/assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t were attracted, the respondent/assessee filed a revised return to bring to the fore this aspect. 16. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/assessee did pay tax amounting to Rs. 7,75,69,270/-, as per the computation of its total income set forth in the revised return. 17. The Tribunal, having regard to the aforesaid facts, reversed the order of the CIT(A) on two grounds: (i) First, there was no concealment of income. The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent/assessee had disclosed the utilisation of the corpus donation accumulated in earlier AYs in its revised return, before it was flagged by the Assessing Officer (AO). (ii) Second, the penalty notice issued to the respondent/assessee did not specify which lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following decisions, which includes a decision rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court. (i) CIT and Anr. v M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows, passed in ITA No. 380/2015, dated 23.11.2015. (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) (iii) PCIT vs M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., passed in ITA No.475/2019, dated 02.08.2019. 7.1. To be noted, the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgement in SSA s Emerald (mentioned above) was dismissed via order dated 05.08.2016. 7.2. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the above-mentioned judgements (in SSA s Emerald and Manjunatha Cotton) and, in any event, are bound by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
