9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate proceedings. The grounds were taken before the learned CIT (A). The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional HC in case of MR. MOHD. FARHAN A. SHAIKH [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (LB)] AR laid down that in the absence of such specific notice, the notice would be invalid. As held in various judicial pronouncements including the decision of CIT V/s SAS s Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] . The notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding /confirming the action of the Learned AO in not recording any direction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in order to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. Ground No. 3-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding/confirming the action of the Learned AO in levying penalty of Rs. 8,811,560 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income for the year under consideration. Ground No. 4-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in holding that the Appellant failed to bring any material on record, which could establish that, the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 9-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding / confirming the action of the Learned AO erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without establishing any mens rea on part of the Appellant without which penalty could not have been levied. Ground No. 10-Without prejudice to the grounds 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorized Representative invited our attention in appellate order, Para 6, which is reproduced as below: - 6. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income overstating its current year's loss by Rs. 2,59,23,978/- and as such, it is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I hereby impose a minimum penalty of Rs. 88,11,560/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particulars /furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is worked out at Rs. 88,11,560/- being 100% and Rs. 2,64,34,680/- being 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which is initiated the penalty and also in the penalty order the learned Assessing Officer has not mentioned reason of penalty specifically whether the concealment or in accurate particulars of income . The issue was duly taken care of before the learned Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings and objection was filed. The copy of the letter of objection dated 15thJune, 2016, is annexed to page no.7 of APB. The same legal ground was agitated before the learned CIT (A) and the objection was filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, but none was adjudicated this legal issue. The learned Authorized Representative respectfully relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional HC in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed by Hon ble Supreme Court which is reported as 73 Taxmann.com 248. The notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. 011. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned penalty is not sustainable on legal grounds. Hence, by deleting the same, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 012. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and the penalty amount of ₹ 88,11,560/- is quashed. As the appeal is decided on the basis of the legal issue, so the merit is onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
