2020 (6) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the fact that the quantum of additions were confirmed which tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee." 3. The return of income in this case was filed on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 4,41,22,817/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 20/08/2010 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 08/03/2011 at an income of Rs. 6,11,12,196/- and additions were made as under:- (i) disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 76,54,478/- (ii) disallowance on depreciation on non compete fees of Rs. 92,28,515....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ven the specific charges either in the notice dated 08/03/2011 as well as in the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) be sustained. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s Manjunatha and Ginni Factory and ors 359 ITR 565. The above principal was further affirmed by the Apex Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pri. CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Companies Limited 2019 (8) TMI 409. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that there is no concealment in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ordingly dismissed." Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not ment....