TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principle of natural justice as such deserves to be quashed. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming penalty U/s 271(1)(c) levied by Ld. AO which is arbitrary and contrary to provisions of law as Show Cause Notice issued by Ld. AO is general in nature without mentioning specific charge for imposition of penalty. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 3,79,637/- levied by Ld. AO which is arbitrary, perverse, whimsical and contrary to facts and provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice as such action of Ld. CIT(A) needs to be undone and penalty of Rs. 3,79,637/- levied by Ld. AO deserves to be deleted. 4. That appellant crav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on this amount. The Assessing Officer further noticed that a diary was found during the course of search which was marked as A-4. Since the assessee could not reconcile the entries found in the diary so seized and could not give any explanation, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 8,97,350/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,92,470/-. 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 4,30,622/- u/s 271(1)(c) being the minimum penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-est in the eye of the law and the charge should be specific in said notice. In absence of the same, the notice will be invalid even if there is specific charge in assessment order and penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer :- i. Shri Sachin Arora, ITA No.118/Agra/2015 dated 19.12.2017. ii. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, 184 TTJ 9. iii. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd., ITA 7386/Mum/2014 dated 12.01.2018. iv. Kwality Ltd., ITA No.150/Kol/2017 dated 04.04.2018. 10. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled. 11. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Limited reported in 88 ITR 192. Referring to following decisions, he submitted that section 292BB would not come to the rescue of the revenue when the notice was not in substance and in conformity with or according to the intent of the I.T. Act :- i. Shri Sachin Arora, ITA No.118/Agra/2015 dated 19.12.2017. ii. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, 184 TTJ 9. iii. Shri K. Prakash Shetty, ITA No.265 to 267/2014 dated 05.06.2014. 14. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. 15. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. The extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (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 Tri....