2020 (4) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: "1. Tha the penalty imposed and sustained by the C.I.T. (A) at Rs. 354013/- is illegal and arbitrary. 2. That the penalty imposed and sustained at Rs. 354013/- by the C.I.T. (A) on the basis of illegal notice issued u/s 271(l)(c) which did not specify the particular limb of sec. 271(l)(c) of the Act i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is illegal. 3. That sending of notice where all the grounds mentioned in sec. 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law and the penalty imposed on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....65 and followed by I.T.A.T. Agra Bench in the cases of Shri Sachin Arora & Others in ITA 118/Agra/2015 & Bunch is bad in Law. 4. The issue of defective/illegal notice, in peri materia of facts, considering the decision of hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (Supra) has been examined by us at length, distinguishing the case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR in the bunch of appeal in cases of Rajesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Surendra Jain and Others in ITA No.I.T.A No. 259/Agra/2019 and 67 -68/Agra/2019,very recently. The relevant part of the decision is extracted here under: 20. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record and have also consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the same set of facts. Moreover we are also of the opinion that the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of the 'Dinesh Chandra Jain', (supra) had laid down an additional test to be considered while determining the case of penalty whereby it was held by the honourable court that the assessing officer should apply his mind denovo without being influenced by the finding recorded by the assessing officer in the assessment order. In fact, if we look into the order of penalty passed by the assessing officer, we found that there was no application of mind by the assessing officer and the assessing officer has merely borrowed and relied upon the finding recorded by the assessing officer in the assessment order. 21. At this stage, it ....