TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding the penalty of Rs. 7,24,195/- imposed by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short]. 2) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 7,24,195/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements." 3. Vide letter dated 01.04.2021, the assessee sought permission to raise additional ground of appeal as per Rule 11 of the Income Tax Rules. The additional ground of appeal reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is bad and defe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, New Delhi-55 6. The ld. DR vehemently stated that in the assessment order itself, the Assessing Officer has made it clear that additions have made which amount to concealment of income and, therefore, the intention was clear. Hence, notice is not defective. It is the say of the ld. DR that the notice has to be taken into consideration alongwith the findings made in the assessment order. 7. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y 2012-13 in ITA No. 5127/DEL/2017 order dated 08.07.2021 and ITA Nos. 5123/ to 5126/DEL/2017 for A.Ys 2008-09 to 2011-12 order dated 02.09.2021 and stated that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal has considered the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Otherwise though the initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice 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 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiated 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 judgement in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT." 14. It is, therefore, clear that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessi....