2018 (4) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1)(c) of the Act which was dated 29.11.2010 and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was sought to be levied. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO had simply sent 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 particulars of income. The Ld. AR further submitted that since in the notice, both the charges were mentioned and the irrelevant portions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law." 4.1 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 filed raising the following substantial questions of law, Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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. 4.2 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 Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as above-mentioned we are of the consi....