2021 (5) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") amounting Rs. 12,80,780/- initiated on the basis of the Notice u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28-12-2011 issued alongwith the assessment order without specifying clear-cut charge of Concealment of Income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is not conformity with the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) fail to appreciate that Ld. Assessi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccount of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, addition on account of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and addition on account of prior period expenses. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on Rs. 37,34,407/- and addition made on account of disallowance u/s. 40(1)(ia) of the Act was sustained on this. The Assessing Officer proceeded to impose the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. After giving notice to the assessee, penalty of Rs. 12,80,780/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed vide order dated 30.03.2019. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who also sustained the penalty. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the assessee are again....

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 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 order dated 5th August, 2016. 22.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....271(1)(c) of the Act which is not conformity with the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) fail to appreciate that Ld. AO invoke explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is applicable only in case of concealment of income and not for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)/AO erred in holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particular in respect of disallowance of the Interest expenditure claimed u/s. 36(i)(iii) of the Act placed on records. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that appellant r....