2019 (11) TMI 1409

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 have been raised by the assessee: "1. That on facts and in law imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 42,910/- is totally wrong, unjustified and illegal. The appellant is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the following grounds: i) That the ld. CIT (A) has not considered the various facts before passing the order. ii) That assessee had bona fide reasons for claiming deduction u/s 24 and section 80C of the Act. iii) That the ld. A.O. has not specified that under which limb he is initiating the penalty proceedings i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the basis taken and method adopted by the assessing officer for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order of the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance ltd in ITA No. 475/2019 dated 02.08.2019. It was argued that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 has been reiterated in the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble High Court while dealing this issue at para no. 21 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 vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if ....