TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng officer regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income and as such, the penalty so levied is unsustainable in law and is liable to be deleted as such. 2.1 That further the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, thus, reliance placed solely on. the order of assessment is wholly misconceived and misplaced. in law and as such the penalty order is liable to be quashed as such. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in overlooking the basic fact that the denial of deduction under section 80 HHD of the Act on account of pocket expenses of a sum of Rs. 26,71,040/-, was bona fide claim made by assessee - appellant and as such, there was no occasion to sustain the penalty levied on the additions which have already been deleted by Hon 'ble Tribunal. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining order of penalty without going into the merits of the claim and also without affording proper opportunity to the appellant company to present its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.2.2006, I am of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. I am of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does 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. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, I cancel the penalty in dispute. My aforesaid view is supported 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 furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 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 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected." 8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the AO has passed the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income." Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on ---- ----200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the 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. In our view the penalty in dispute is no....