2019 (4) TMI 266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g duplicate appeal. 3. Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal No. 580/Asr./2017. 4. The AR of the assessee Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. And Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. has filed before us at page No. 13 of the paper book notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22.12.2011. He submitted that it will be seen from the notice that the same has been issued for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the order of penalty dated 30.05.2013 levy of penalty of Rs. 9,77,480/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and hence not sustainable. 5. The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing 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?" 8. 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 w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....foresaid two 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'ble High 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 strik....