TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO has failed to distinguish whether the penalty levied is for (a) concealment of income, or (b) furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income by the assessee company. 3. The order of penalty passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law in as much - a. the basis of penalty is addition made on estimates in quantum proceedings; b. making of bona-fide claim for deduction is not at par with concealment or giving inaccurate particulars; c. full disclosure of all facts was made and the same was in consonance with the stand of the Assessing officer; d. The profit accruing to the assessee company has been offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year; e. The assumption of fact that assessee company had followed proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty order show that this is not a case were the explanation was bona-fide and there was full disclosure of facts", whereas Ld. AO has not alleged either in assessment order or penalty order that the appellant has failed to do so." 3. The assessee Company filed return of income for Assessment Year 2011- 12 declaring loss of Rs. 9,52,563/-. Since, it was belated return filed, the return loss was not claim for carry forward to subsequent years. The return was subjected to proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D, estimation of profit from the advance received from Ansal Properties thereby reducing return loss of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The assessee had not challenged the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Meadow. 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) 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....