TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide his order dated 26.09.2014 for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds:- "1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and acted against the principal of natural justice in having passed the ex parte appellate order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in having presumed for alleged noncompliance of notices that the appellant did not appear to be interested in pursuing the appeal, leading to dismissal of all the grounds on the sole foundation that in his appellate order he has upheld the addition of Rs. 9,69,00,702/- as unexplained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in error in having alleged while upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,29,36,579/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act that there was concealment of particulars of income in spite of the facts that the share transactions were through banking channel and the particulars of income & transactions are part of the audited accounts, which were duly furnished. 7. That, as the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above issues suffers from illegality and is devoid of any merit, the same should be quashed and your appellant be given such relief as prayed for. 8. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and or rescind any or all of the above grounds." Parnashree Banerjee, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of income or having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A copy of the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act was filed which is placed on record and perusal of the same reveals that AO has not struck out the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice. Therefore the show cause notice does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether the charge is of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance on several case laws as presented on the issue of whether "tick mark" not placed on the relevant space as provided in the Notice u/s. 274 of the Act, outlining the type of default, would constitute ground for rejection of satisfaction and levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. First, the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal vs. CIT (2011) CTR 631 (Cal) stated that "section 271 nowhere mandates that recording of satisfaction about concealment of assessee's income must be in specific terms and word, satisfaction of AO m9ustd reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO himself or by his overt act and action.". The ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Trishul E....