TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A)], Mumbai on legal grounds as well as on merits. Since additional grounds are legal in nature and do not require appreciation of new fact, the same are taken on records. As per registry noting, it is noticed that both the appeals have been filed with a delay of 25 days and the assessee, by way of condonation petition, has pleaded for the condonation of the same and attributed the delay to non-availability of directors at relevant time to sign the appeals. Keeping in view the quantum of delay and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 7371/M/2014 for AY 2003-04 where the assessee is saddled with penalty of Rs. 80,94,048/- which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/08/2014. Sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, stated that 'the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated on account of addition of Rs. 2,20,24,623/- being the non bonafide loss on account of sales to associate concerns and various parties during the year at unjustifiable prices...................Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated'. Whereas in contrast, show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(C) mentions the charges as 'have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income' without striking-off the relevant words/clause/limb. Finally, the penalty has been imposed by Ld. AO in the penalty order by stating that 'It has been established that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading to conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 359 ITR 565] which was later followed by the same court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 23/11/2015] against which special leave petition [SLP] filed by the revenue before Apex Court in CC No.11485/2016 order dated 05/08/2016 was dismissed by the Hon'ble court, finding no merits in the case. Further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the ratio of same judgment in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [ITA No. 1154 of 2014 order dated 05/01/2017] and further Tribunal, in catena of judgment and more particularly in Wadhwa Estate & Developers Vs. ACIT [ITA N0. 2158/Mum/2016 dated 24/02/2017] has tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome for which the penalty was being initiated as both the limbs, as per settled legal propositions, are different connotations and carry different meaning. The same also becomes clear from the language of show-cause notice which states that the assessee have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Even the show-cause notice did not specify the limb / offence for which the penalty was being initiated. Finally, the penalty has been levied for filing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income which shows inconsistent thinking on the part of AO. Undisputedly, the AO was required to specify the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized which he has failed to do so....