TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent/assesee had preferred an appeal with the Tribunal against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"]. 4. The respondent/assessee's appeal was rejected by the CIT(A), which resulted in the penalty order, passed against it being sustained. Via, the penalty order the respondent/assessee has been mulct with penalty amounting to Rs. 5,39,56,443/-. 5. The record also discloses that the respondent/assessee which is registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "The Act"] had filed its return on 30.09.2009 declaring "nil" income. 6. The respondent/assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the pendency of the scrutiny assessment, the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the assessee filing an appeal with the Tribunal. 13. What is emerged from the record is that in the earlier AY, the respondent/assessee had opted for accumulation of its corpus donations. The accumulation led to the respondent/assessee having a corpus donation of Rs. 25,16,00,000/-. The details, as provided in the order of the Tribunal, are extracted hereafter: S. No. Assessment Year Amount 1 2006-07 4,66,00,000/- 2 2007-08 10,50,00,000/- 3 2008-09 10,00,00,000/- TOTAL 25,16,00,000/- 14. There appears to be no dispute that out of the aforementioned amount i.e., Rs. 25,16,00,000/-, Rs. 20 crores was utilized by way of donations to other charitable institutions. 15. Consequently, since the provisions of Section 11(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arlier judgments of this Court, as well as the judgments of the Karnataka High Court. 21. In Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v Ms Minu Bakshi 2022:DHC:2814-DB, a coordinate bench of this court, [of which one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J. was a member], the issue concerning the penalty notice not indicating the precise limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the assessee was proceeded came up for consideration. The relevant observations made therein are extracted hereafter: "7. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the instant case that the notice for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, did not specify which limb of the said provision the penalty was sought to be levied, is covered by the followin....