TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Assessing Officer made following additions:- A.Y & quantum Nature of addition and position after CIT(A) order Remarks 2006-07 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vy 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 by the Assessing Officer in penalty notice and hence, addition grounds be admitted. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SSA Emerald an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld 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 of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt 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 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 w....