TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y following the decision of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). 3. At the time of hearing, ld Departmental Representative by referring to the grounds of appeal submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow (supra) is not binding on the department in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanmugavael Nadar, 263 ITR 658 (SC),wherein, it is held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. He, therefore prayed that the orders of the ld CIT(A) be reversed by restoring the order of the AO. 4. Replying to above, ld Counsel for the assessee supported the orders of the ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriate words in the said notices have not been struck off. A perusal of the notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 29.12.2017 show that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. It is pertinent to note here that the penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notices dated 29.12.2017 for both the assessment years produced during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity the levy of penalty will be bad in law. The relevant portion of the judgement is as below: CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) "Notice under section] 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where a\l the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(l)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in [case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law] as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, th....