TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arning salary income. For Assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed her return of income on 2010-11 2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,59,962/-which comprised of Rs. 20,58,291/-as the income from salary, Rs. 77,48,487/-as the income from long-term capital gain, Rs. 1.5 Lacs is a loss from house property and Rs. 2,71,671/-from other sources. Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") to the tune of Rs. 77,48,487/- on account of investment in residential property amounting to Rs. 41,39,135/-against which the assessee deposited an amount of Rs. 36,09,352/-in capital gain account. Learned Assessing officer found that the assessee had purchased plots in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Develo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of income so as to evade the tax and taking the facts and circumstances in their entirety into consideration, Ld. CIT(A) held that the learned Assessing officer was fully justified in holding the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to evade the tax and imposing the penalty. 4. Argument of the learned AR is thatneither the assessment order nor the notice spell out under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was proposed. For this proposition he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC) in CC No.11485/2016 dated 5.8.2016 and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....she has to defend whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars, shewas put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply and to defend herself effectively in penalty proceedings. 6. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). Vide paragraph 60, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :- "60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable." 7. In ITA 380/2015, the Hon'bleKarnataka High Court Considered the question of law as to,- "Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?" And the Hon'bleHigh Court ruled answered the same ....