9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for initiation and subsequent levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- As in notice it shows that as for the purpose of section 271(1)(c), it is not specifically mentioned as to under which limb of the default for which penalty is leviable, the assessee was called on to reply and face penalty proceedings. In this context, the law is now quite settled that the penalty proceedings should be based on a not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.12.2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. 'FAA') in Appeals No. 10296/18-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that in regard to the impugned adjustments and disallowance in the assessment order, it was mentioned that the assessee has 'concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' and that was the foundation of initiation of penalty proceedings notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As we go through the impugned order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 23.03.2017, we find the ld. AO has ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar); Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT, 434 ITR 1 (Bom); and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ITA No.475 of 2019 and the aforesaid principles have been reiterated in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Mead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
