TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon order. 2. Levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) for all the above three years is the only issue raised by the assessee in the respective grounds of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for the respective assessment years the details of which are as under :- A. Y. 2008-09 Rs. 26,03,718/- A. Y. 2010-11 Rs. 46,93,437/- A. Y. 2011-12 Rs. 46,34,558/- 4. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was carried out at Dalmia group of cases on 20.01.2012 and 27.10.2012 and the premises of the assessee was also covered in the said search. In response to notice u/s. 153 (A), the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 274 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty order passed u/s. 271 (1) (c) in pursuance to the said notice deserves to be set aside. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions :- i. SSA 'S Emerald Meadows 242 Taxman 180. ii. Dilip N Shroff, 291ITR 519. iii. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565. iv. Samson Perinchery, 392 ITR 4. v. Sahiwal Investment & Trading Co., ITA No.4913/Del/2015 dated 18.07.2018. vi. Dr. Sarita Milin Davare, 184 TTJ 9. vii. Jeetmal Choraria, 91 taxmann.com 311. viii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the said decision has held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and hence no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court while referring to this decision has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565. The SLP filed by the assessee has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152. 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Milind Davare, 184 TTJ 9. iii. Shri K. Prakash Shetty, ITA No.265 to 267/2014 dated 05.06.2014. 14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c ) of the IT Act which has been upheld by the CIT(A). It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the inappropriate words in the notice issued u/s. 274 r/w 271 (1) (c) have not been struck off and notice does not specify under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) has been initiated, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee by observing as under :- "12.Additional Ground No. (ii) is relating to absence of specific charge pointing out in the notice. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb, the penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) has been initiated. From the notice elated 30.06.20J3 produced, by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officerv 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1 )(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Id. DR has relied on various decisions to the proposition that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, all these decisions are of non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal relied on by the ld. DR is prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (surpa) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. Since there is no decision of the Jurisdictional H....