TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,67,942/-, 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." ITA No. 5133/Del/2017 "1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,58,595/- 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. 3,58,595/-, 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." 2. We shall first take up ITA No. 5133/Del/2017 concerning Assessment Year 2010-11 for the purposes of adjudication. 3. As per the grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5133/Del/2017, the assessee seeks to challenge imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,58,595/- levied under Section 271(1)(c). 4. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty has been quashed. A further reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in case of (i) PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del.); (ii) CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn); (iii) Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 [Bom (FB)], for the proposition that notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law where it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was thus urged that the whole proceedings seeking to impose penalty is non est and bad in law at the threshold and consequently the penalty order in pursuance of the defective notice requires to be struck down. 8. Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the first appellate order. It was further submitted that the penalty notice referred to and relied upon on behalf of the assessee cannot be seen on a standalone basis and requires to be read in conjunction with the assessment order where the specific satisfacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other assessee's of the Rockland group who had also filed settlement applications as "specified person" u/s. 245C(i) proviso (i). However, the assessee's application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission vide their order dated 23.04.2013, wherein the Commission held that the assessee does not qualify for admission as a person "related to" to the "specified person". The assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, challenging the rejection order of the Settlement Commission, but the petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ' on 20.10.2015. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order making the following additions over and above the income returned by the assessee: A.Y Head of addition Amount (IN Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Disclosure in settlement application 30,00,000 (ii) Unexplained cash credits 1,79,56,880/- (Hi) Commission paid to secure unexplained cash credits 5,38,706/- The assessee filed appeal against all the above heads of additions. In the appeal against the quantum additions, the following amounts were confirmed in first appeal. A.Y. Head of addition Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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(i)(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 accordingly dismissed." Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) has become nu....