AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) is invalid and bad in law as from the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act it is not discernable as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and therefore, the impugned penalty order passed deserves to be quashed. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly upholding the action of Assessing Authority imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,82,673/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is highly injudicious, unwarranted, against the facts of the case and bad at law. 3. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal. 3. Facts narrated by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of law as well as the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. I have also perused the Notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the AO for 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 23.12.2011 are reproduced as under:- ".....it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated.............. * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5/undisclosed income in the case of search....." 6.1 After perusing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee." iii) ITAT, 'A'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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. 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 not sustainable 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 ....