9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] which has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP and by the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT [ 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT ] Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). Decided in favour of assessee. - SH. N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Padam Bahl Sh. Vipul Arora (Ld. CAs) For the Respondent : Dr. Devendra Singh (Ld. CIT-DR) ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: By way of ITA No. 465(Asr)/2014 the assessee has challenged the order dated 12/05/2014, impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Jalandhar, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the levy of penalty to the tune of Rs. 6.50 crores u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'. Whereas by way of ITA No. 463/Asr/2017 the Revenue Department has challenged the order dated 10/04/2017, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty to the tune of Rs. 7,14,97,376/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. By way of the Cross Obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (exemption) v. Agrim Charan Foundation 253 ITR 593 (Delhi). 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Appeal Jalandhar has failed to appreciate that the matter of Rs 6.50 crore deposited by the assessee trust in contravention of Section 11(5) cropped up for the first time in front of CIT(A) in Appeal Against Quantum Proceedings. 4. In addition to raising the grounds mentioned above, the assessee has also raised additional ground claiming to be being legal in nature which for the sake of completeness is reproduced herein below. The notice under section 274(1) read with section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2008 does not specify whether the notice has been issued on the ground of concealing the particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadow (SLP CC No. 11485/2016). 5. Having heard the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the additional ground and claimed the same as legal in nature. In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court, in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '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 01 the derision 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to record his satisfaction in particular manner or reduce to it into writing. The cases relied upon by the Revenue Department are factually dissimilar because in M/s. K.P. Madhusudan Case (supra) the Apex Court has not dealt with the striking off the column in notice u/s 274 of the Act but in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) the Apex Court y dismissing the SLP, upheld the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, wherein the penalty was deleted for not specifying the limb of the penalty to be imposed in the notice u/s 274 of the Act. The decision in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) as relied upon by the Revenue Department relates to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer while making assessment but it does not speak about the notice u/s 274 of the Act. Hence, we do not have any hesitation to follow the case i.e. M /s SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Karnataka High Court which has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP . 7. Now coming to the instant case. From the perusal of the notice dated 30-12-2008, issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
