2022 (4) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorized representative submitted that though these appeals are of different assessees and for different assessment years, but the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and, therefore, he has common submissions to make. It was further submitted that the submissions made by him while arguing one appeal would be applicable to other appeals also. 3. Learned Departmental Representative did not controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the learned authorized representative. 4. We, therefore, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the appeals by a consolidated order but, however, proceed with narrating the facts for assessment years 2003-04 in ITA No.1475/Del/2019. 5. Before us, learned authorized representative....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....presentative pointed to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.03.2013 which is placed at page 17 of the paper book, wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned "have concealed the particulars of your income...furnished inaccurate particulars of income". He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to for which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty has been initiated i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He, therefore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.(2021) 432 ITR 84 submitted that the show-cause-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 14. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) & CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) [where the SLP filed by Revenue was dismissed and reported in (2016) 386 ITR (ST) 13 (SC)] has held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable when the notice issued by Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of particul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N Shroff on the issue of non application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dlip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the some postulates that inappropriate words & paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done." Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on the facts, has felt that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee has concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully obser....