TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....three years but the issue and amount involved 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g as under: "3. Search and seizure action u/s. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (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 applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') 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 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. 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 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 ord....