TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Assessing officer, vide assessment order dated 30.12.2013,made two additions. The first addition of Rs.22,50,000/- was made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s. 24 of the Act claimed by the Assessee @ 30% of the annual letable value of Rs.75,00,000/- of the rented property situated at 274 UdyogVihar, Phase-II, Gurgaon. The Assessing Officer made this addition on the premise that the Assessee has also claimed depreciation on the same very building amounting to Rs.10,39,000/- which is included in the total depreciation of Rs.52,50,000/- and that the Assessee has included this building in the block of asset during the year under consideration. Therefore, according to the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause notice dated 30.12.2013 u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Actand fixed the date of hearing 07.01.2014. In response the Assessee furnished its reply on 07.02.2014. 2.3 In reply dated 07.02.2014, the Assesseecontended that the above disallowances do not constitute concealment of income nor does it amount to filling of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter another show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 11.06.2014 was also issued to the Assessee, which remained uncomplied. Being not satisfied with the said explanation of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.10,50,800/- equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on both the above additions totalling to Rs.34,00,650/- for concealment of its incomeand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pported 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 . 7. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of Act for concealment of the particulars of income or filling of inaccurate particulars of income but without specifying any particular limb and finally vide penalty order dated 30-06-2014 imposed the penalty on both of the limbs. 7.1 The Assessee by way of raising the plea which is legal in nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfaction 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 particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 2....