2021 (11) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Ld.CIT(A) has erred holding that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act can be levied and that the A.O. failed to take into account the provisions of section 271 AAA of the Act. In fact, provisions of section 271 AAA of the Act are not applicable in the case of assessee as the undisclosed income does not pertain to specified previous year which is only A.Y.2012-13 as the search was held on 10.02.2012. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable in the case of the assessee. In fact, the A.O. has correctly initiated and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income by the assessee. 3. The assessee is an I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed Cash investment was detected on basis of Search conducted at the residence/office premises of the Aerens Group, penalty proceedings under 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, were initiated by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) @ 100% of the Tax sought to be evaded, amounting to Rs. 1,68,30,000/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer vide Penalty Order dated 26.09.14. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT (A) erred in holding that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied and that the Assessing Officer failed to take into account the provisions of Section 271AAA of the Act. In-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also not stated in the assessment order. There is no 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 ini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. 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 penalt....