2026 (6) TMI 1319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case in brief are that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, 'the AO') vide order dated 29.03.2016, assessing income of Rs. 1,79,71,090/- as against the returned income of Rs. 88,06,130/- as declared by the assessee in the return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Act on 18.08.2014. The AO issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 19.08.2016, giving a show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be imposed, for the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, the assessee replied the same. The penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 28,31,976/- in the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 19.08.2026. 3. In the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SBI, (2024) 169 taxmann.com 305 (SC). The Ld. AR finally prayed that penalty notice as well as penalty order may be quashed as the same are invalid, nullity and bad in the eyes of law. 6. Per Contra, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the mere non-mentioning of one of the two charges in the notice should not result in quashing the notice or the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR prayed that if at all any defect is there, the same may directed to be cured by referred to the matter to AO for issuing correct notice and passing the penalty order accordingly. 7. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and perusing the materials available on record including the penalty notice, we find that undisputedly the notice h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g terms : "In CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) the High Court of Karnataka following the decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Kar.) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The said decision of the High Court of Karnataka was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.....