2020 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation preferred by the revenue it is discerned that the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by taking note of the invalid notice, since the AO failed to specify the charge by striking down the irrelevant fault/charge i.e. "having concealed the particulars of income or furnishing in accurate particulars of such income". For doing so, the Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 which was followed by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 which decision though has been challenged by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here 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(l)(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 and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, ....