9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice leads to same becoming void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Thus, we note that due to defect in the penalty notice, penalty is not sustainable, hence the same is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n facts and same are bad in law." 3. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was directed by the ld. CIT (A) to be levied on the following two amounts :- (i) Undisclosed stocks : Rs. 12,33,832/- (ii) Unexplained gifts : Rs. 15,00,000/- 4. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has raised a legal issue that the penalty notice was an omnibus notice without specifying the charge and it was prayed that since the notice is not specifying the charge, penalty levied is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment 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 que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
