2022 (9) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing out of Penalty order dated 31.03.2017 u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi. 2. The facts in brief are assessee is a company engaged in real estates, land trading and development. A search was conducted at the office premises of the company on 31.01.2008. Subsequent to that assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A was passed on 25.02.2013 and the Ld. AO had made additions on three counts for which he also observed "penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars". Thereafter after issuing notice and hearing the assessee the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the AO has rightly recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order before initiation of penalty and as additions were made on multiple issues the penalty was rightly imposed in accordance with the law. a. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. b. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the Revenue the Ld. CIT DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in not appreciating the facts in the correct perspective and he submitted that the ld. AO had initiated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e due to two conflicting views. 6. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the submissions, the bench is of considered opinion that the assessee has although raised four grounds. The same are based on common set of facts and law. A perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) shows that it reproduced / scanned the notice issued by the Ld. AO for the purpose of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same shows that it is on a Performa where certain columns have been even left blank. The notice shows that assessee was charged with ; *have concealed the particulars of your income .............furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.* 7. This notice on its face shows that it is not a case where the Assessi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nged 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 vs. 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 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 N....