TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s return of income on 29th December, 2000 declaring total loss of Rs. 99,81,920/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 8th May, 2001. Subsequently, on the basis of the report of the Special Auditor, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 on 29th December, 2006 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,54,61,031/-. However, after allowing carried forward business loss and depreciation of earlier years, the total income was determined at nil. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the various additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. However, there was not much relief and the ld.CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Tribunal (TTAT) in the quantum proceedings. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty in respect of the alleged personal expenditure and capital expenditure merely because the disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty merely because his predecessor has upheld the penalty on similar issues in other years. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the settled judicial position that assessment proceedings are separate and distinct from penalty proceedings and the fact that some addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of opinion on account of allowability of the claim of the assesse, and as such no penalty can be levied in such cases." 6. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd., 229 ITR 383, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground being purely legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be investigated, the additional grounds raised by the assessee be admitted for adjudication. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has neither objected before the Assessing Officer nor raised any ground before the CIT(A) on the issue of non-striking of the inappropriate words and, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has cancelled the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). Therefore, this being a covered matter in favour of the assessee, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) should be cancelled. 9.1 So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the order of the Tribunal, submitted that out of the three additions on which penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer, the disallowance of alleged personal expenditure has been allowed by the Tribunal at para 7.2 of the order. However, the remaining two additions have been confirmed by the Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. 11. He submitted that how a property which fetched Rs. 20,000/- in the hands of the original land owner can fetch a rent of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month by way of an agreement. Thus, the conduct of the assessee shows in volumes. He accordingly submitted that at least penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on this issue be confirmed. 12. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered various decisions cited before us. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the IT Act dated 29th December, 2006 shows that the Assessing Officer has not struck off th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner o....