9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act"). The following grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "Ground: a. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 98,98,120/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. b. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in admitting evidence in violation of Rule 46A." 2. Cross objections raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was in itself void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed, more particularly in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as it was not made clear in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,32,751/- and vide penalty order dated 27.03.2019 levied a penalty of Rs. 98,98,120/- at the rate of 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who vide order dated 21.08.2023 deleted the penalty. Aggrieved against it the Revenue has preferred appeal and the assessee has filed cross objections before this Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that in the present case the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is void ab initio, inasmuch as from the order of AO it is not clear under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was levied i.e. whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 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 CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241, 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 question of law arises." 8. Respectfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
