2018 (12) TMI 1504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty of Rs. 32,88,663/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that while making the assessment for the assessment year under appeal by disallowing the expenses of Rs. 69,74,864/- out of total expenses of Rs. 70,08,764/-. Further disallowance was made of Rs. 7,67,758/- under the head "warranty provisions". Further addition of Rs. 12,44,642/- was made under the head "sundry creditors". The Assessing Officer observed that he was of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid undisputed disallowances / additions there is sufficient material on record to prove that assessee has concealed the particulars of his income and has also f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Recently Hon'ble SC in case of VeerbhadrappaSangappa& Co. [TS-381-SC-2016] dismissed the revenue SLP against Karnataka HC Judgement on law of penalty. 6. He submitted that in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer in the penalty order has held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income and has also furnished inaccurate particulars thereof for levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the revision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of VeerbhadrappaSangappa & Co. & Ors. (Supra) the penalty levied is liable to be deleted. 7. The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submission of ld Authorised Representative of the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 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 pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'bleHigh Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the ir....