TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as carried out at the premises of companies of Rockland group as well as at the residential premises of directors of the companies on 06.09.2011. Notice u/s. 153A was issued to the assessee requiring them to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring nil income. Subsequently the assessee filed an application for settlement u/s. 245C before the Income-tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person, but such application was rejected. Assessee also filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High court, where also he failed. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 20.06.2014 at an income of Rs. 1,00,000/- by making addition of this amount as additional incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y objection whatsoever they have participated in the penalty proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the case of the assessee. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is an undisputed fact that the notice issued to the assessee does not specify the charge under which the penalty was proposed to be levied by the Assessing Officer. 9. In the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar), vide paragraph 60, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows:- "60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable." 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Considered the question of law as to,- "Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed." 13. In PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited case ITA No. 475/2019 and batch order dated 02/08/2019, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, upheld the view taken by the Tribunal basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) wherein it was held that the notice issued by the learned Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify under 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 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court read that,- "21. The Respo....