2023 (3) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (in short "the Act"), pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Assessing officer vide assessment order dated 27.03.2014 made various additions, i.e., Rs. 23,37,500/- on account of unsecured loans, Rs.1,94,850/- on account of personal expenses and Rs.17,099/- on account disallowance of depreciation on car, and also initiated the penalty proceedings for 'concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income. Consequently the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 274/271(1)(c) of the Act on dated 27.03.2014 and ultimately vide penalty order dated 26.09.2014, levied the penalty to the tune of Rs. Rs.7,22,288/- @ of 100% of the tax s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying any particular limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for concealment of income of Rs.23,37,500/- only, on account of unsecured loans. The Assessee challenged the Imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore we deem it appropriate to decide the legal issue involved in the instant case first before dwelling into the merits of the case. 7.1 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 High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the Assessee. Operative part of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 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 are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed 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." 7.4 The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. ....