2025 (2) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 30.03.2015 by making various additions. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed wherein penalty of Rs. 15,64,288/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submit that at the time of initiation of the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice was issued to the assessee vide notice dated 30/03/2015. The said notice is reproduced as under: 30/03/2015 To Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries Pvt. Ltd. Manish Plaza, 20, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2012-13 it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 04.30 P.M on 04/09/2015 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the income Tax Act. 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271 Vinod Kumar Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(3), New Delhi" 3. Ld. AR submit that from the perusal of the both notices it could be seen that in both notices, it was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He thus, by following the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated without recording the satisfaction is liable to be quashed. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below:- "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y 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 on the derision 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, the appeal is accordingly dismissed." 7. As observed above, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act withou....