2021 (11) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ("the Act") for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income (the AO considered it as concealment of income and CIT changed it to inaccurate particulars). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied merely because of disallowance of certain expenses claimed by the appellant is not further contested. 3. Any other grounds of appeal may be added/amended/deleted at the time of hearing of appeal. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other ground. " 3. The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction. For assessment year 2014-15, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nfirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), the penalty is levied was not mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) and CIT v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is 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 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of 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 f....