2019 (9) TMI 1650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the penalty. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law confirming the penalty of Rs. 41,41,114/- which is not only bad in law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual who was assessed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act of Rs. 12942910/- wherein, an addition of Rs. 1.25 crores was made on account of undisclosed income. Consequently, the assessment was passed at Rs. 12943910/-. While making the addition the ld AO initiated the penalty proceedings in the assessment order stating that since the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also submitted inaccurate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....harges twin limbs of the default has been noted. He referred to several judicial precedents in this regard. For the sake of brevity all these judicial precedents are not mentioned. 5. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the addition has been confirmed by the honourable Delhi High Court in the present case and therefore the assessee has concealed the income. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Raj Hans Towers private limited vs Commissioner of income tax in 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) to support the case of the revenue. 6. Assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal precisely challenging the initiation of the penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in ITA 475/2019 order dated 02.08.2019. while deciding the identical issue 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 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 follo....