TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 12,94,533/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benches of tribunals. 4. That without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allegation of the AO regarding certain manipulation in the transaction of shares to earn long term capital gains to buy peace and the income so disclosed in return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and was accordingly imposed. 5. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically point out as to whether the penalty was for the concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the appellant submitted that the show cause notice was defective on which no penalty could be imposed. The ld.CIT(A), however, rejected the contention of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d there was no substantial question of law and dismissed the SLP of the Department with regard to the above penalty proceedings. 7. The learned DR has relied on the orders of lower authorities holding that penalty was rightly initiated and imposed. 8. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the rival submissions and provisions of the Act in this regard and also the relevant case laws. It may be stated here that similar issue has already been dealt with by this Bench in its recent decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal vs CIT for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 in ITA No.255- 258/Ran/2023 dated 26th August 2024. In this case also, the assessee contested penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged defective notice issued u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arnataka High Court in SSA Emeralds Meadows vs. CIT 242 taxmann 180 also echoed the view that if the charge of penalty is not specific in the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, meaning thereby if such notice is ambiguous as to whether penalty is levied for concealment of income or for providing of inaccurate particulars of income, then such notice is void ab initio and bad in law. This view of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed in CIT vs. SSA Emeralds Meadows (2016 )242 taxmann 180 (S.C). 6. We must reiterate and we feel appropriate in this context of adjudication also to revisit the classic decision of Ho....