TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 741
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifically mentioning whether the penalty is being sought to levy for "concealment of income" or "furnishing wrong particulars of income" is illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction. The said initiation deserves to be quashed as illegal abinitio." 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, she opposed to admit the additional ground. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. On the admission of additional ground, I 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, I am 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 goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice, we admit the aforesaid additional ground raised by the assessee,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 09.12.2015, I am 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. I am 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. My aforesaid view is supported 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 ini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Emerald Meadows - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars 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. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assesse....