TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to appreciate that no notice dated 08.12.2017 & 29.03.2018 seeking compliance for 08.01.2018 and 10.04.2018 were served on the assessee, the order passed ex-parte is bad in law and be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and should have passed a speaking order based on Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4. Because there being neither any concealment, nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, nor there being any specific charge, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,64,000/-. 5. Because the authority below has erred on facts and in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. For this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, delivered on 11/4/2018, in 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' in T.C. (Appeal) Nos.876 and 877 of 2008 and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Heard. The show-cause notice in question is as follows: 6. From a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income, or for furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory' (supra) and decided that there was, therefore, no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter, an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. In 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory', ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 155, it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing out any specific charge for which penalty had been imposed, penalty was liable to be deleted. 11. In 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, on which reliance has been placed by the ld. D.R., their Lordships, dismissing the appeal of the assessee, held as under: "16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory' (supra). Rather, the matter was decided on the facts of the case, holding, inter alia, that the case of the Revenue against the assessee was that of concealment of income as well as that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, 'Sundaram Finance' (supra) is of no aid to the Revenue. 13. Moreover, in the present case, as against that in 'M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT' (supra), this issue had been raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), and it has also been raised before us, contending that prejudice has been caused to the assessee and the charge against the assessee in the assessment order as w....