TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 4,14,470/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 4,14,470/- u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. That the assessee craves the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments addressed by the authorized representatives of both the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?" 7. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that in order to initiate the penalty proceedings, the AO has failed to specify in the show-cause notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows-73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (Revenue's SLP dismissed in 242 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee goes to prove that the AO himself was not aware/sure as to whether he is issuing notice to initiate the penalty proceedings either for "concealment of particulars of income" or for "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income" by the assessee rather issued vague and ambiguous notice by incorporating both the limbs of section 271(1)(c). When the charge is to be framed against any person so as to move the penal provisions against him/her, he/she is required to be specifically made aware of the charges to be leveled against him/her. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows - (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue quashing the penalty by the Tribunal as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 v. 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." 13. Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows and Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), we are of....