TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed before us copy of notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016, copy of which is placed on record and pointed out there from that in the said notice, the Assessing Officer has stated as under :- "Where in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09, it appears to me that you :- ....... have concealed the particulars of your income or ......... furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 4. He submitted that it is not clear from the said notice issued u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer whether the show cause is issued to the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. He submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing oj inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SIONER or 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. " 6. Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 271(1 )(c) apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271 (1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed "particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.1.2014 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thu....