TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 i.e. the year under consideration claiming deduction of Rs. 94,88,204/- u/s 80IC of the Act. This deduction was duly allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 7.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, in the return of income, while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, the assessee deducted this amount of Rs. 94,88,204/- but on having realized the mistake, the assessee vide a letter addressed to the A.O., filed a revised computation of book profits rectifying this mistake. The A.O. accepted the revised computation of the book profits b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r initiating the penalty proceedings was recorded for concealment of income whereas in the penalty order the penalty had been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, thus, there was a contradiction in approach of the department and as such the penalty was not sustainable. The Ld. AR also reiterated the fact that in the statutory notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, the charge for which the penalty proceedings were being initiated was not specified. The Ld. AR further submitted that since in the notice, both the charges were mentioned and the irrelevant portions were not crossed out, the notice was not as per the requirements of the Act. He relied upon the decisions of various Hon'ble Courts especially on the Hon'ble High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 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 underPage | 6 "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 particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xmann.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. 5.2 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 considered view that the Assessing Officer is required to specify which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initi....