TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 were made u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) vide assessment-orders dated 28.03.2013 and the assessment of AY 2012-13 was made u/s. 143(3) vide assessment-order dated 30.03.2015. The AO made certain additions in these assessment-orders. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) and issued show-cause notices u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show- cause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of AY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of AY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 51,46,802/- Rs. 4,54,203/- and Rs. 4,94,625/- respectively for AYs 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first- appeals but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before us. ITA No. 162/Ind/2025 (AY 2009-10) & ITA No. 161/Ind/2025 (AY 2012-13): 4. The grounds raised in these appeals are identical. For reference purpose, we re-produce the grounds raised in one of the appeals: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer / CIT(A) has erred in levying/upholding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 274 should satisfy the grounds, which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principle of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague. Even in the matter of search case where penalty is levied under Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was cancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) was further followed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was bad-in-law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty u/s. 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned in respective additions. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the case-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by AO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal of the show-cause notice of AY 2009-10, we find that the same contains both of the charges viz. "concealed the particulars of income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" and AO has not stricken-off any one. Further, the notice of AY 2012-12 does not contain any charge at all. Therefore, the whole proceeding of penalty conducted by the AO is illegal and unsustainable as per the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra). 11. The decision of Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) takes into account the earlier judicial precedents of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) and CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). Therefore, we would also to like to re-produce the relevant portion of these decisions: CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka): ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by dismissing SLP filed by revenue in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). 12. Ld. DR could not controvert the applicability of above judgements. Therefore, in the light of binding decisions as noted above, we are satisfied that the penalty imposed by AO is not valid on this very reasoning. Accordingly, without going into merits of penalty, we quash the penalty- proceeding at the very threshold on legality aspect itself as claimed by assessee. Consequently, the appeals of AY 2009-10 & 2012-13 are allowed. ITA No. 137/Ind/2025 (AY 2010-11): 13. The registry has informed that this appeal has been filed on 31.01.2025 against impugned order of first-appeal dated 20.05.2023 after a delay of 550 days (the assessee has computed delay of 562 days) and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that the appellant was earlier ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given sufficient hearings to assessee and served notices of hearings on multiple e- mails out of which one e-mail [email protected] is of the Ld. AR himself. When it is so, there was no reason for non-participation before CIT(A) and for not filing present appeal in time. (iii) That the delay of 562 days is 'very inordinate' and the assessee has failed to give any explanation, much less 'sufficient cause', for condonation of delay. 16. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the condonation application/affidavit filed by assessee as well as the orders of lower-authorities. After a careful consideration, we find that the present appeal has been filed by assessee on 31.01.2025 impugning the order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A) on 20.05.2023. There is a delay of about 562 days in filing present appeal. The assessee is claiming that such delay had occurred for the reason that the assessee had to go behind the bars. But during hearing when we dug from Ld. AR and raised a query qua the custodial period, Ld. AR reported that the period was 21.03.2021 to 29.11.2021. Thus, the custodial period expired on 29.11.2021 whereas the impugned order was pass....