AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 5114/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2006-07) "1. That the Ld. GIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 9,08,820/-,imposed by the AO., invoking the provisions of sec 271(1)( c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 9,08,820/-,without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. Additional Grounds "a) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in upholding the penalty of Rs. 30,900/- imposed by the AO., invoking the provisions of sec 271(1)( c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 30,900/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence." 3. A search was conducted in Rock land Group as a result of which proceedings u/s 153A were initiated against the assessee and assessment u/s 153A was framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 20/6/2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Clause 1B. However, there are many judgments wherein it has been held that requirement of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is sine qua none even after amendment. The levy of specific charge against the assessee in the body of assessment order or in the notice of penalty issued on the date of completion of assessment proceedings is sine qua none for affirming the jurisdiction of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the Revenue that both charges i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income are applicable in this case. But the notice issued by the Revenue contain that there is concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, no specific charge was pointed out b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position of law that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are two separate things and the Assessing Officer has to specify the charge under which he is going to impose penalty on the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that the appeals of the assessee may be allowed. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the penalty order is very clear and the penalty is imposed on concealment of income and, therefore, merely not mentioning the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) will not make the penalty order bad in law. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and order of the CIT(A). 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadow. The extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the 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 particul....