2020 (5) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the case all notices except last one were served at wrong address. (c) That the Order of CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts and circumstances of the case among other defends the show cause notice it does not specified charge for which penalty is being levy. 2. That the imposing penalty on addition of Rs. 14,54,230/ is bad in law as the assessee has not concealed/.filed inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That the imposing penalty on addition of Rs. 16,847/- is bad in law as the assessee has not concealed/filed inaccurate particulars of income." 3. In this case, return of income was filed on 18.08.2011 disclosing an income of Rs. 3,34,010/- for the year under consideration. An information was received by the Assessing Officer that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly was received by the Assessing Officer from assessee till the date of passing the penalty order as on 22.08.2014. Consequently penalty proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record. It has been discussed by the Assessing Officer in the penalty order that assessee could not explain the source of deposits in the bank accounts. Thus, as per the Assessing Officer, assessee failed to explain the source of credits in the aforesaid bank accounts maintained or operated by him and he surrendered the income only after detection by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, relying on the provisions of Explanation-1 of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs. 3,88,549/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that there is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 10.02.2014 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. The extract of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee ....

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 issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court 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 ha....