TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducted 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 challenging the levy of penalty. 3. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 particulars of income. From the notice dated 27/3/2015 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntested 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 notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiate....