2022 (2) TMI 1031

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ircumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,71,40,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law holding the penalty proceedings initiated and levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as invalid since the show cause notice and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act and hence the infirmity, if any in these are taken care of by the provisions of section 292B of the Act." 3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that the assessee filed its Return of Income e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was strongly contended that two views are possible and the assessee has taken a plausible view, which cannot tantamount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. 8. The assessee also challenged the validity of notice claiming that the Assessing Officer has not specified as to under which limb penalty is leviable. 9. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced on both counts. On merits, he deleted the penalty stating that the impugned issue is highly debatable and the assessee has taken a plausible view and also went on to quash the notice itself stating that the Assessing Officer has not mentioned whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(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(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of inc me or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment 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 b....