TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er:- "That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty so imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by failing to appreciate that the show cause notice so issued was defective, as there was no specific charge labeled in the said show cause notice and as such, the penalty deserves to be quashed." 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and has tried to justify the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty in dispute. However, he opposed to admit the additional ground. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On the admission of additional ground, we find that the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT as well as decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, hence, we are of the considered view that on the anvil of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 (Supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal ground and do not require fresh facts which is to be investigated and go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.00 AM/PM on 13.1.2010 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity to being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271." 8.1 After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 01.12.2010, we are 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. We are 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. Our aforesaid view is supported by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified 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, 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 Emer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) 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.....