TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. 2. At the outset it was argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that in the instant case the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.12.2016 is vague, having not mentioned any limb of the penalty and, therefore, the penalty is not leviable. The assessee in support of its contention also relied upon various judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and High Courts. For the sake of brevity, we are referring few: (i) CIT Vs. SSA‟S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC); (ii) Principal CIT Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 Taxmann.com 379 (SC). 3. On the contrary the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order under challenge does not suffer from a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and. invalid inspite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. 7. Even the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) while following the cases referred above, held as under: "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the 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 no....