2017 (12) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 5788/Del/2014 (AY 2007-08). 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee's appeal No. ITA No. 5788/Del/2014 (AY 2007-08) read as under:- "1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, biased and bad in law and on facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,51,693/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that there was no difference between returned and assessed income. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred I in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the appellant had neither furnished inaccurate particular....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed the penalty of Rs. 3,51,693/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.9.2013. 4. Against the Penalty order the Assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 11.9.2014 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the penalty in dispute. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that the penalty proceedings ought to fail, the penalty was initiated for concealment of income. However, the Notice dated 26.3.2013 for levy of penalty u/s. 271 read with Section 274 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was ambiguous and vague in as much as it is stated both concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of reference, the copy of Notice dated 26....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as well as in the penalty order dated 30.9.2013 AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) 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 f....