TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as "the Act") 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had field additional grounds of appeal which raise an important legal issue. It was prayed that the additional grounds may be admitted. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed the prayer of the Ld. AR. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and after going through the additional grounds, we are of the considered opinion that these grounds are essentially legal grounds and go to the very root of the matter in respect of the penalty. Therefore, we deem it fit to admit the additional grounds which read as under:- "3. The notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) and order imposing penalty under said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. AR drew our attention to notice u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act and placed at Annexure 'A' of the assessee's paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that notice dated 28.03.2013 was defective as the Assessing Officer had not specified the charge on which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was sought to be levied. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO had simply dispatched the printed form of notice without crossing out the irrelevant portions. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) there are two limbs under which penalty can be imposed and the Assessing Officer has to necessarily specify under which limb, the penalty is being sought to be imposed i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law." 7.1 The above-said judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factor, reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs SSA's Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) and the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court are as under- "2. This appeal has been f iled raising the following substantial quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered, in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, 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 in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7.2 Further, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs SSA's Emer....