TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in confirming the penalty of Rs. 26,43,488/- on total income of Rs. 77,77,250/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 1.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1 lac without appreciating the fact that the addition were made on estimate basis without bringing on record any material especially when the details supplied in the return was not found to be incorrect / erroneous or false, hence the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) deserves to be deleted in toto. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Id. AO has passed the impugned order without establishing any mala fide intention of the assessee and by ignoring the fact that every single deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r furnished inaccurate particulars of income." 3. We have heard the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR on admission of the additional ground whereby the assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) for want of specifying the default whether concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. Further, for adjudication of the additional ground no fresh investigation of fact is required except those already on record. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not require any investigation of new facts for its adjudication and relevant record and facts are available on the assessment record then, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC vs. CIT (Supra) the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. On merits of the additional ground the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that since the notice issued u/s 274 has not specified the charge for levy of penalty whether it was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income then the said notice suffers from illegality and therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order. The Assessing Officer has also recorded a satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, there is no defect in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. The ld. DR has further contended that the assessee did not raise these issues/grounds before the AO or ld. CIT(A). Hence, the nature of default was not questioned before the authorities below. The ld. DR relied upon the various decision as under:- * CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 212 Taxman 519. * Shri Rajnish Vohra vs. DCIT vide dated 31.10.2012 in ITA No. 516/CHD/2012. * Snita Transport (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 42 taxmann.com 54. * Bharat Kumar g. Rajani vs. DCIT 40 Taxmann.com 344. * Shri Satya Narain Gupta vs. DCIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he validity of the notice u/s 274 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that if the AO has categorically recorded a finding in the assessment regarding existence of the grounds on which the penalty proceedings would be initiated against each and every item of income and addition, which are subject matter of assessment. Hence, though the relevant facts and records are available on the assessment proceedings however, in view of the complexity the various facts and records which are available on the assessment record but are not disclosed in the impugned orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequential the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) due to the reasons that the assessee did not raise this issue before the authorities below, t....