TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TO and the CIT(A) erred in - Levying a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (b) The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at and before the hearing. 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that the penalty in dispute has been initiated by the AO both for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of income. In support of his contention he draw our attention towards the Notice dated 30.11.2010 issued by the AO. He stated that the notice for initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initiation of penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him. For the sake of convenience, some of the contents of the penalty Notice dated 30.11.2010 are reproduced as under:- ".....it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice u/s.142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961dated..................... * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5....." 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 30.11.2010, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Emerald Meadows - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO 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 furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee." iii) ITAT, 'A' Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 5788 to 5790/Del/2014 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no substantial question of law arises - decided in favour of assessee." ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. 7.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) has given clear finding regarding the furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para no. 5.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- during surve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In our view 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....