TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 25,09,949/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act . Also the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty on disallowance of loss on account of diminution in value of shares of Rs. 25,60,558/-. The 3rd ground is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty on disallowance of loss Rs. 44,35,817/-, which according to the AO was assessable under the head "Income from Other Sources". While doing so, the ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said loss was declared by the appellant as loss from agricultural activities and the same was excluded while computing its income. The 4th ground is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inaccurate particular of income' is deleted. He further submits that notice u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of income and sending printed form where all the grounds in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. He states that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically, otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & others 359....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that 'Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.' The ITAT "H" Bench Mumbai in the case of Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra) followed the above judgement and held the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 and the penalty proceedings as invalid. 6.2 In the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306, the Hon'ble Gujarat High has held: "...We find from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in the penalty proceedings, that is, the final conclusion as express....