TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(In short the 'Act') dated 30.06.2009 framed by ACIT-3(1), Indore. 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and relates to same assessee, they were heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing activity of packaging goods at Ghata Billod, Dist. Dhar (M.P) and was set up with the promoters contribution and finance from M.P.F.C., bank and subsidy. Search u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business/residential premises of the assessee and its group concerns on 10.8.1992 to 13.08.1992. Notices u/s 148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect to the Appellate Orders passed by the Hon'ble Bench and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, the petitioner submits that unless tax sought to evaded is finally determined, the penalty order so passed is premature and void and it is therefore, prayed that the order imposing penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) may kindly be set-aside. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that Learned Tribunal has rightly relying on the decision of CIT V/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and CIT V/s SSA'S Emerald Meadows rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by the authorities. No substantial question of law is arising in these appeals. ITA. No(s) 9/2018, 10/2018, 11/2018, 12/2018, 13/2018 and 14/2018, filed by the appellant have no merit and are hereby dismissed." 7. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative, you may show cause in writing or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271. Sd/- (Vijyenddra Kumar) Asstt. Commissioner of income-tax-3(1), Indore 9. From perusal of the above show cause notice we find that the Ld.A.O has merely mentioned the section but the specific charge i.e. whether the penalty have been initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has not been mentioned. Now whether such type of notice which does not speak about the specific charge leveled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on one limb and finding the assesssee in another limb is bad in law". 12. In the instant appeals also the Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged addition goes under the limb of "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Merely issuing notice in general proforma will negate the very purpose of natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N Shraf 161 Taxmann 218 that "the quasicriminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. 13. We therefore respectfully following above referred judgments and in the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that the alleged notices issue....