TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch case. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the Bakshi Group of cases and the assessee was also covered. In response to notice u/s 153A the assessee filed return for the AY 2007-08 declaring income of Rs. 11,97,20,118/- surrendering an amount of Rs. 9.50 crore under the head "long term capital gain". Assessment was completed on 31.03.2015 on total income of Rs. 12,45,65,094/- including therein addition of Rs. 48,44,976/- on account of unexplained investment in paintings. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on 29.9.2015. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty and directed the AO to restrict the penalty in respect of unexplained investment in paintings to the addition upheld by him in quantum appeal. The assessee is before us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that concealment penalty due to addition on account of valuation of paintings is unwarranted. 5. The Ld. DR had nothing to say. He placed reliance on the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and supported it. 6. We have perused the order of the Tribunal, Bench E, New Delhi dated 11.12.2019 in the case of Minu Bakshi, wife of the assessee before us wherein the Tribunal observed and held as under :- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. First of all, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us, the penalty itself is based on incorrect Section. Therefore we are taking up the contention of the assessee that there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon hie 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 Honhle 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 specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed 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 Honble 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(l)(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 no....