TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in all the three years are identical except for the year involved and therefore his submissions are also common. The Learned DR did not controvert the aforesaid submissions of Learned AR. We therefore for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of all the three appeals by a consolidated order but however refer to the facts in ITA No. 5090/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11. 3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under: 4. AO has noted that a search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted at business premises of the companies of Rockland Group as well as at the residential premises of directors of the companies on 06.09.2011. Consequently, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. That the Appellant carves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal." 6. Before us, Learned AR submitted that the sole issue for adjudication is levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). He submitted that a search was conducted in Rockland Group as a result of which proceedings under section 153C were conducted against the assessee and assessment under section 153C was framed by the AO. He submitted that for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 additional income that was disclosed before the Settlement Commission amounting to Rs. 1 lakh in each year was added by the AO and on such addition, penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been levied. He submitted that the AO has simply initiated the penalty proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter referred to as the "the Act") was carried out in the Rockland group of cases on 06.09.2011. Subsequent to the search and seizure action, assessment proceedings were carried out u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3), by issue of notice dated 05.08.2013 to the appellant to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 10.09.2013, disclosing the total income as NIL. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for settlement u/s. 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of a "related" person, related to the other assessee's of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as "specified person" u/s. 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the amounts confirmed in first appeal. ............. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 20/06/2014 produced by the Ld. AR 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 Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." Thus, Additional G....
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. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises." Thus, notice under Sectio....