2018 (5) TMI 934

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has filed cross-objections against the same. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 21/02/2014 whereas the impugned penalty has been levied vide order dated 19/08/2014. Since the assessee's cross objections raises legal grounds and goes to the root of the matter, we take up the same first. 2.1 Facts leading to the imposition of penalty are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged as service provider was assessed at Rs. 'Nil' under normal provisions and at Rs. 255.86 Lacs u/s 115JB as against 'Nil' return filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011. 2.2 During assessment proceedings, it was noted that as per return of income, the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, the show-cause notice dated 11/07/2014 did not specify the exact charge / limb for which the penalty was being initiated and therefore, the penalty proceedings stood vitiated on legal grounds. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [392 ITR 4]. The Ld. AR further contended that even otherwise there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) since full particulars of income were furnished by the assessee in the return of income and error in computation crept in under bona fide belief and due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and therefore, the impugned penalty was not ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng observations:- Since the assessee has concealed income i.e. Book Profit and furnished inaccurate particulars of income penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)of the I.T.Act, are also separately initiated. Further, a perusal of the show-cause notice dated 11/07/2014 reveals that Ld. AO has not specified the exact charge / limb viz. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for which the penalty was being initiated. The revenue could not controvert the said fact by showing any other penalty notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). Finally, a perusal of the penalty order reveals that the penalty has been levied by observing that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. A perusal of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar view has been expressed in the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 359 ITR 565] which was later followed by the same court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 23/11/2015] against which special leave petition [SLP] filed by the revenue before Apex Court in CC No.11485/2016 order dated 05/08/2016 was dismissed by the Hon'ble court, finding no merits in the case. Further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed the ratio of same judgment in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [ITA No. 1154 of 2014 order dated 05/01/2017] and further Tribunal, in catena of judgment and more particularly in Wadhwa Estate & Developers Vs. ACIT [ITA N0. 2158/Mum/2016 dated 24/02/2017....