TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting additional grounds, which consist 5 to 32 grounds. In ground No. 24, which is raised as additional ground, the assessee has raised a legal ground that the CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has issued an invalid show cause notice u/s 274 rws 271 of the Act while the penalty is levied under the specific section 271AAA of the Act. 2.1 As the said additional grounds are legal grounds, wherein, the facts are on record and facts do not require fresh investigation, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co., Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the said additional grounds of assessee. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that Search and Seizure operations uls, 132 of the LT. Act were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the said admission of the assessee, the AO was of the opinion that it is only because of the detailed enquiries and investigation carried out, during the course of post search operation, which resulted in unearthing the agreement of sale entered into by the assessee for purchase of property that the assessee admitted the said income. 3.2 The AO made another addition on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for performing the marriage of assessee's daughter at Rs. 1,30,00,000/- as against Rs. 13,45,893/- admitted by the assessee and her husband. On appeal, the ITAT confirmed the marriage expenses at Rs. 30,00,000/- as against Rs. 13,45,893/- disclosed by the assessee and her husband. Thus, an addition of Rs. 16,54,107/- was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of revenue authorities and filed written submissions which are as under: "1. The appeal is against levy of penalty u/s 271AAA for A.Y 2008-09. This is a case where search operation took place and in her statement u/s 132(4) on 14/12/2007, the assessee denied to have made payment of unaccounted money and did not disclose any unaccounted income. Even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income is earned. 2. The assessing officer levied a penalty of '6,41,454 @ 10% on the undisclosed income arising out of 3 items viz., income of ' 42,50,000 disclosed under the head other sources as a result of enquires in the search proceedings, unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Sundaram Finance Limited Wherein it was held that "Before us, the assessee seeks to contend that the notices issued under Section 274 r/w. Section 271 of the Actare vitiated since it did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is purely a question of fact. Apart from that, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 In the case under consideration, on perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAA of the IT Act, 1961, dated 28/03/2012, which is placed on record of paper book, it is seen that the Assessing Officer did not mention whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not valid and consequently, the order passed u/s 271AAA is also not valid. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) ....