TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 28/3/2016, the assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case mystery for the disposal of this appeal are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing automotive components such as crankshafts, crankshafts assembly, Conrod etc. They have filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 26/11/2011 declaring an income of Rs. 34, 65, 89, 484/-and subsequently filed the return of income for the same amount pursuant to the proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act was complete by order dated 28/3/2013 at Rs. 41, 50, 22, 020/- by making certain additions which include the addition of Rs. 31, 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore liable to penalty under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act. On this premise, learned Assessing Officer proceeded further and levied penalty of Rs. 1, 72, 408/-by way of order dated 28/3/2016, which was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also assessee had taken similar defences and the main plank of argument as could be seen from the impugned order is that the levy of penalty on the basis of notice which is vague and illegal cannot be sustained. Ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that an examination of assessment order reveals that the learned Assessing Officer duly reached the satisfaction for initiation of penalty by applying the mind, which could be inferred from the assessment order itself. Ld. CIT(A) further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee would be available, or to deliver it to some authorised person, or by making request to the postal department to detain the mail till the assessee claims the same. Since the assessee does not seem to have adopted any of these methods, we are the considered opinion that no time could be granted. Basing on the record we proceed to hear the counsel for Revenue and decide the matter on merits. 8. It is the argument of the Ld. DR that in view of the binding precedent relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A), the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be found fault with. According to the Ld. DR to the extent the addition was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal, the learned Assessing Officer was reasonable holding that there is furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led answered the same in favour of the assessee observing that: "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(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 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. In ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgement 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 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT." 12. It is, therefore, clear that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(....