TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the revenue nor was any application filed seeking adjournment. The Ld.AR submits that the issue before the Bench is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld.AR submits that a paper book containing pages 1 to 44 was filed on 29- 03-2017 and referred to page no-7 where a copy of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was placed and urged the bench to allow the appeal in terms of this decision. We find that the issue before us is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows supra and we proceed to hear the case and dispose of the same by perusing the material on record. 3. The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tlers of Sikkim before the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim questioning the non availability of tax exemption granted initially. The AO not satisfied with the submissions imposed penalties of Rs. 8,54,903/- and Rs. 7,46,067/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by separate orders dt. 31-05-2012 for the A.Ys 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively. . In the first appellate authority, the CIT-A confirmed the penalties as imposed by the AO. Relevant portion of finding of the CIT-A is reproduced herein below:- "4. Discussion, and, Appellate Decision: The same discussion and reasons in my appellate order in the case of the appellant's brother-Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal [ supra]- is applied here too. The Sikkim issue is just for mere argument sake-as vide CBDT Circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 5.8.2016. 8. We have heard the ld.AR and perused the material available on record. We find that the penalty notice dt.30-12-2012 u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act at page no-1 does not specify the charge of offence committed by the assessee i.e whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Even the column "have without reasonable cause failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1)/143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 is also not struck off. Except the address of the assessee, assessment year and signature of the AO, nothing is struck off in the notice. Hence the said notice is to be held as defective. Now t....