2019 (12) TMI 1104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) even though there is no case of recording of proper satisfaction in terms of provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act and as such the penalty order is illegal and without jurisdiction. ii) That in absence of recording of specific satisfaction or levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the notice u/s 274 and the consequential order is invalid and void-ab-initio. 2(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty of Rs. 6,19,080/- on the alleged ground of concealment and furnishing of inaccura....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiate the penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the submissions made by assessee AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs. 6,19,080/- at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded i.e. 6,19,080/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of present appeal. 4. Assessee has failed to turn up to pursue the present appeal despite notice and consequently bench proceeded to decide the appeal with the assistance of Ld. DR for the revenue ex parte on merit. 5. Undisputedly addition made by the AO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nning Factory-359ITR 565 and CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows -73 taxmann.com 241 (kar.) (Revenue's SLP dismissed in 242 taxman 180). 8. From the perusal of assessment order on the basis of which penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated apparently goes to prove that Assessing Officer has failed to record valid satisfaction so as to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as to under which limb of the Section 271(1)(c) i.e. as to whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings has been initiated. Even perusal of the penalty order goes to show that the penalty has been levied merely on the basis of addition made by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the SLP filed by the revenue quashing the penalty by the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice u/s 274 of the Act has held as under : "Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1 )(c) penalty proceedings had....