TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2011-12. 2. As per assessment order, the AO on noticing that the Assessee received the share capital of Rs.35,00,000/- from Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd., a company found to be controlled and managed by one Shri Anil Agarwal who had admitted in his statement that the company M/s. Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd. does not undertake any business activity except providing the accommodation entries , made the addition of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of bogus share capital by passing assessment order dated 30.03.2015 u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act. On the basis of said addition Rs.35,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y inviting para No. 5 of the penalty order emphasised that the Assessee by filing its reply to the notice u/s. 274/271(1)(c) of the Act has acknowledged the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the ld. Commissioner does not require any interference on this score. 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessee in the instant case has challenged the imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore we deem it appropriate first to decide the legal issue, which relates to validity of Notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, without specifying particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 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 thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law....