AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In both the appeals the respective assesses have challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. ITA No.5655/Del/2018 (A. Y. 2003-04) 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the asessee is a company and field its return of income on 30.10.2003 declaring nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148. The AO passed the order u/s. 254/143 (3) determining the total income at Rs. 1025000/- wherein he made addition of Rs. 10 lakhs u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of share capital receipt from different persons and an amount of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is for imposing the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said action of the CIT(A) is bad in law in upholding the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the act ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of the assessment proceedings. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty so imposed in complete ignorance of detailed explanation and submissions furnished before him that neither there is concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Roots Education (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No.1368/Del/2016, ITAT Delhi. 9. A. C. Goods Transport P. LTd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2428/Del/2015, Delhi She accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 403 ITR 407, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where notice did not show nature of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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. 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck of. I find the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Mitra Vs. DCIT has decided an identical issue and the penalty so levied by the Assessing officer and upheld by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice 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) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, all these decisions are of nonjurisdictional High Court decisions. The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal relied on by the Id. DR is prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. Since there is no decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue, therefore, we find merit in the argument of the Id. counsel for the assessee that if two views are available on a particular issue, the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ....