TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty order dated 28.03.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :- "(i) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of difference in the sale amount disclosed by assessee and value as per stamp valuation authority u/s.SOC of the Act. The penalty so confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. (ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of electricity expenses and treating them to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs. 18,09,327/- @ 150% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of filing the appeal who has reduced the penalty from 150% to 100% by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Undisputedly, penalty proceedings have been initiated on the basis of four disallowances viz. on account of prio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dated 27.10.2020 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings which is extracted as under for ready perusal:- "Penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAN AAACK5966G Dated: 28.12.2012 To M/s. Kissan Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, South of G.T. Road, BSR Road, Indl. Area, Ghaziabad. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2010-11 it appears to me that you :- have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section 139(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculars 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. 10. 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 as Hon'ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice has held as under:- "Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come 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 of2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016." 12. Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows and Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the same has ....