TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led as the 'Act') 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee belongs to the Chaurasia group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Pan Masala and Gutka. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 29.04.2008. No incriminating material or undisclosed asset or investment was found during the course of search. Subsequently, the assessee filed the return of income u/s 153A of the Act at a total income of Rs. 52,69,856/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act wherein a trading addition of Rs. 7,39,037/- was made to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income. The addition of Rs. 7,39,037/- was mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income as explained in the reply filed before the A.O. 3. Because in the asstt. order as well as in the show cause notice issued by the A.O. there was no finding as to whether there was any concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Because the asstt. order as well as in the penalty order there has been no finding about positive concealment of any income. The addition made by the A.O. was based on estimate basis and no incriminating material relating to earning of any income was found in search. 5. Because the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the facts of the case. 6. That in any case & without prejudice to the above grounds the quantum of penalty impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the lower authorities and submitted that the penalty had been imposed as there was a finding of suppressed sales by the Custom and Central Excise Department and the demand due towards Excise Duty payable had also been finally settled by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. It was submitted that it was a clear case for imposition of penalty and it did not really matter that the charge was not specifically mentioned. The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that this ground of defect in the notice was not raised before the Ld. CIT (A). 5. We have gone through the facts and records of the case and have duly considered the rival submissions made before us. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as appearing on page 6 of the pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works reported in 122 ITR 306 (Guj.) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgo Marketing Ltd. reported in 171 Taxman 156 (Delhi) have held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Mere filling up of the standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to inference as to non application of mind. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2012) 83 CCH 0282 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held : "(1) ....