9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is a delay of 11 days in filing appeal by the assessee. Finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be plausible and reasonable, we condone the delay. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee while filing return of income u/s 153C of the Act had declared capital gain of Rs 20,84,508/-on sale of property for a total consideration of Rs 71,50,000/-. The assessee while calculating capital gain, had taken an amount of Rs. 48,84,524/- as construction/renovation expenses during different years for calculating cost of acquisition. As the assessee had not been able to furnish any documents in support of her claim on cost of improvement/renovation, the same were disallowed by the AO and added to the total income of the assessee. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld AR relied on the following decisions: i) Pr. CIT Vs. Mr. Zoheb Hosain and others vide judgment dated 22.11.2024 ii) CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565(Karn) 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR responding to the arguments made by the ld. AR contended inter alia that the notice issued by the AO is not standalone document which is based on assessment order and that the notice has been issued in respect of concealment of income. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, penalty of Rs. 12,36,814/- has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The entire quarrel revolves around the penalty notice, which accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of such income. In such a situation the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. 359 ITR 565 (Karn) is illuminating. It dealt with the identical issue threadbare and came to the following conclusion :- "63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: ********* p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee." 12. In identical circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd V PCIT [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) order dated 02.08.2019 has held as under: "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT 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 lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
