2020 (4) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing grounds of appeal : "1. That the CIT (A) is erred under the law while partly confirming the order of A.O., imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. That the CIT(A) is erred under the law while confirming the order of A.O., imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on following additions & disallowances as the appellant has not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income as alleged :- a) Addition on account of interest u/s. 244A of the Act. Rs. 45,884 b) Excess job work receipts as per 26AS Rs. 18,600 c) Disallowance of short term capital loss Rs. 28,71,839 d) Business loss/Depreciation - Revised computation. Rs. 23,28,939 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the IT AT. 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 been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income fax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th Augus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. SSA Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 noted the findings of the Tribunal, in which, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by assessee holding the notice issued by A.O. under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to be bad in Law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has referred to their earlier decision in the case of CIT vs., Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and dismissed the Departmental Appeal. ....