TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on the facts of the case." Additional grounds: "1(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) even though the assessing officer has failed to specify the charge and record requisite satisfaction with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and as the impugned penalty order is illegal and void-ab-initio. (ii) That the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) being on specific and assessing officer having failed to strike out the irrelevant charge, the impugned order is invalid and in contravention to principle of natural justice. (iii) The impugned order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, 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. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar). The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (ITA No. 475/2019 vide order dated 02.08.2019) held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the penalty proceedings had been initiated. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the penalty order is very clear that the penalty is imposed on concealment of income and, theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. 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 in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is a....