AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is a company engaged in the business of providing consultancy services in the field of pulp and paper, Market and the Resources Survey, Forest and Environment Studies and also Engineering and Consultancy Services in different field other than pulp and paper. For the assessment year 2012-13, it had filed its return of income on 29/8/2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 26,52,883/-. During the assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 30/9/2014 the assessee stated that inadvertently they have failed to add back the provision for doubtful debts to the tune of Rs. 11,94,235/-and interest paid on TDS to the tune of Rs. 18,050/-. Assessing officer, however, treated the same as concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith section 271 of the Act, further argument of the Ld. AR is in respect of the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and basing his stand on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565, Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar) and also the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ld. PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co Ltd in ITA No. 475 and batch of 2019, the ld. AR submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), Ld. DR submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 9. And the Hon'be High Court answered the same in favour of the assessee observing that: "The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It followed the decision of 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 judgement in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax 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 August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this court is unable to find any err....