2025 (8) TMI 1616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CM APPL. 53047/2025 of ITA 350/2025 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. CM APPL. 53005/2025 (condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal) CM APPL. 53006/2025 (condonation of delay of 654 days in refilling the appeal) of ITA 344/2025 CM APPL. 53008/2025 (condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal), CM APPL. 53009/2025 (condonation of delay of 654 days in refilling the appeal) of ITA 345/2025 CM APPL. 53036/2025 (condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal), CM APPL. 53037/2025 (condonation of delay of 654 days in refilling the appeal) of ITA 349/2025 CM APPL. 53045/2025 (condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal), CM APPL. 530....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AY 2002-03. On 22.03.2005, the return of the assessee was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer ('AO') passed an Assessment Order assessing the income at Rs. 3,27,75,246/-. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately. 11. The assessee challenged the Assessment Order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'], who dismissed the said appeal and upheld the Assessment Order. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT being ITA No. 1988/DEL/2006. ITAT vide order dated 18.12.2017, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Assessment Order. 13. Thereafter, on 08.12.2018, a Show Cause Notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....65 (Kar.) and held as under:- "The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the 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 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 wa....