TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 19.12.2017 by making various additions/disallowances. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 29.03.2022 wherein penalty of Rs. 45,85,083/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment 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 26/12/2017. The said notice is reproduced as under: "To ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicial pronouncements: - -CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) -Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. PCIT [2023] 157 Taxmann.com 584 (Delhi) -Shyam Sunder Jindal vs. PCIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 625 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income and penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the order of levy of penalty deserves to be upheld and merely for not struck off the limb in the penalty notice, such order should not be canceled. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ka is reproduced below:- "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttracted 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. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to in....