2023 (6) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds: "1. The penalty levied by AO is null and void as the notice issued is vague as to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The penalty levied by AO is null and void as the Ld. JCIT approved the penalty order without application of mind. 3. On meris, the penalty deserves to be cancelled." 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case record perused. 3. Briefly stated facts are such that the assessee-company submitted return of relevant AY 2005-06 on 25.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,33,750/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The AO framed assessment vide order dated 07.12.2007....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended that by saying that the assessee has "concealed the particulars of income" or "furnished inaccurate particulars of income", the AO is himself not sure about the default committed by the assessee. According to Ld. AR, there are innumerable decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and ITAT where it has been loudly held that if the show cause notice does not spell out the specific charge of default committed by assessee, the notice and subsequent proceeding founded thereon are invalid. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of M.P. in the case of Pr. CIT-I, vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia, ITA No. 9 to 14 of 208, order dated 9th May 2018, wherein it was held as under: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 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 Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in simila....