2026 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act']. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,45,940/- u/s 271(1)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per and without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down under the said section. 2. That having to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,45,940/- and passing the impugne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h other. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 19-12-2016 at the premises of the assessee comprising M/s SSG Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Harjeet Singh Sahni and Smt. Rummy Sahni at A-56 Sector 136 Noida. During the search & seizure proceedings various incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. Notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 03-10-2018. In the response of the notice the assessee filed his return of income on 29-10-2018 declaring total income of Rs Nil. There after statuary notices were issued. After considering the submission submitted by the assessee the Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that: 21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 564 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgm....