TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctively. These appeals of the assessee are common facts and grounds, therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and being decided by this consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, we take ITA No. 139/Ran/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18 as a lead case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty u/s 271AAB should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 13,63,831/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that all the conditions as laid down under sub-section 1A were not met, thus, rendering the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the AO in the show cause notice for levying penalty did not specifically pointed out as to whether the penalty was w.r.t. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. Accordingly, the show cause notice was claimed to be defective on which no penalty could be imposed. The ld.CIT(A),however, rejected the contention of the assessee and held that mere not striking off of one limb in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act will not invalidate the whole penalty order. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared and filed a written submissions In the written submission, it has claimed that during assessment proceedings u/s 153A, all the details were provided to the ld. AO and no adverse inference was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in this regard as 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/s 274 of the Act. The Bench after taking note of the facts of the case and proposition of law as emerging from cited decisions above cancelled all the penalty orders. The operative part of the appeal is reproduced as below for ready reference:- "4. We observe from the notices above that the limb on which the penalty has been imposed is not speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) wherein the court had enshrined that levy of penalty is altogether different from assessment procedures. The penalty cannot be levied in a routine manner. The principles of natural justice must be followed wherein the notice served on the assessee....