TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,69,497/- of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the penalty order dated 25.09.2015 without considering the new insertion in Section 270AA. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by not providing reasonable opportunity if being heard to the assessee. Hence, the penalty levied by the A.O. is unjustified and bad in law. 4. The assessee prays leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete all or any of the Grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading and installation of Infrastructure Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 did not define the nature of default i.e. whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Referring to the penalty order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case on the ground that the assessee has concealed his income/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s SSA'S Emerald Meadows vide ITA No.380 of 2015 order dated 23.11.2015, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision, following the decision in the case of Manjunath Cott....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 228. (x) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 328 ITR 44. (xi) CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd., 313 ITR 397. (xii) K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, 251 ITR 99. (xiii) CIT vs. Splender Construction, 208 taxmann.com 302. 9. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case could not justify the expenses claimed by it in the Profit & Loss Account and has surrendered the income during the course of assessment proceeding, therefore, the assessee has concealed its particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars and, therefore, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is fully justified. 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 (for short 'the Act') 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) 359 ITR 565. 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." 12. We find th....