TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the provisions of law, facts, circumstances, 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/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have disclosed this additional income of Rs. 3,69,560/- had there been no search. He, 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/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng decisions, he submitted that the show-cause notice u/s 274 is a mandatory notice without which the initiation of penalty proceedings would become non-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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder, submitted that if two views are possible on an issue, the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed. For the above provision, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 30.06.2013 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. 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 ....