TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2010-11, was affirmed. 2. Brief facts, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal, are that the Assesseeby filling its return of income on 14.10.2010declared its income at 'Nil', which was taken into consideration by the AO who completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act at the net book profit of Rs.2,16,10,800/- after allowing set off of brought forward book loss for F.Y. 2008-09 of Rs. 89,26,065/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer while noticing that the book profit as per part B- TI and TTI - computation of tax liability on total income of return of income- for assessment year 2010-11 is Rs.3,05,36,863/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. 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. 6. 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 without recoding any satisfaction, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued the notice 28.03.2013 u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income, without specifying any particular limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Assessee was found closed, therefore the service of notice u/s 147/148 was made to the security guard and consequently question arose as to whether service affected should be treated as null and void or not, the Hon'ble High Court held that assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act are not invalid or void for want of proper service of notice. Here the case is not of service of notice u/s 274 of the Act but it relates to validity of notice itself, hence the case referred, in not useful being factuallydissimilar. 6.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate 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 unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied." 6.5 The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where th....