2020 (3) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding that even if there was a defect in the notice of the penalty, the penalty order is not vitiated i.e. the penalty notice is valid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the levy of penalty even though partly by disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 confirming the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manju Natha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565." 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal mentioned hereinabove and pointed out to the ld. DR that the appeal can be decided ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1/12 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard ib person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271 Income tax officer Ward 12(1) New Delhi 6. This penalty notice was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A), though admitted the defect in the penalty notice, decided against the assessee as under: "6.1 By grounds of appeal No. 1 to 4, the appellant has challenged the validity of penalty proceedings on the ground that no sp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te under which limb he is proposing levy of penalty 8. This issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and other Hon'ble High Courts. On identical circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi In the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd ITA No. 475 of 2019 order dated 02.08.2019 has held as under: "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had....