TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal, are that the Assesseeby declaring the total income of Rs.12,49,150/- had filed its return of income on dated 29.03.2016, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the Assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had shown to have sold a land property for a sale consideration of Rs.82,90,000/- showing its year of purchase as 1980 for the purpose of indexation and after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts. 7. On the contrary the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order under challenge does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality and hence needs no interference . 8. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee has challenged the penalty order on various grounds. In the instant case, the AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'concealing/ furnishing of particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for concealment by filling of inaccurate particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. 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 partic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted 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(l)(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 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 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is una....