2020 (10) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 27.03.2002 at an income of Rs. 39,80,780/- against the returned income of Rs. 4,30,780/-. During the assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- was made out of the loans taken from relatives and friends. The assessee has not proved the creditworthiness of the depositors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The A.O. in the assessment order has merely mentioned "penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately". The A.O. vide separate Order Dated 09.11.2017 levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT. 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 had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax vs., SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable....