TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued u/s. 271(1)(c) and order imposing penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- by the AO under the said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction as Assessing Officer has not mentioned in notice u/s 271(1)(c) under which violation he has issued notice." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company derives income from Hydro Power Projects consisting of Power House. The assessee filed its ITR for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 at a loss of Rs. 4,61,767/. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 31.3.202014 by making the additions on account of re-computation of long term capital gain by adopting stamp duty value of land amounting to Rs. 1,01,74,000/-; addition on acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income and merely requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance. Hence, AO noted that it appears that assessee has nothing to say regarding the concealment of particulars of his income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of aforesaid additions made to its income. In view of above, it was held that assessee is liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- on account of being long term capital gain at Rs. 1,01,74,000/-, addition on account of unverifiable share application money at Rs. 5,50,00,000/- and addition of Rs. 989/- on account of non-deposit of employees contribution to PF by the due date which were confirmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016. 4.1 In view of above, he requested that the penalty in dispute may be cancelled and appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the Notice dated 31.3.2014 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at 11.00 AM on 10/04/2014 and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that: "*have without reasonable cause failed to furnish ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noted under titled subject. You are hereby required to submit your reply or attend before the undersigned personally of through authorized representative on or before 11/08/2016 at Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar. In case of failure on your part, necessary order will be passed on merit and on the basis of material available on record." 7.1 Upon perusing the aforesaid show cause notice dated 4.8.2016, it is observed that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO. 8. Further, we note that AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- vide order dated 15.1.2018 by holding as under:- "I have carefully considered the explanation furnished by the assessee. It is stated that the assessee has not submit anything regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty 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 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no s....