2022 (11) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned AO. 2. Ground No. 2 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the penalty order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the Notices issued under 274 read with section 271(1)(c) are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned AO without considering tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that under the identical facts the Tribunal following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has also deleted the penalty. 4. On the contrary, learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Learned DR submitted that under identical facts the Hon'ble Madra High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 250 has upheld the penalty order. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assessing Authority has failed to specify the charge under which he was proposing to levy the penalty. For the sake of clarity the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision 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 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." 7. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been followed by the ....