TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to support his case. In SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] looked into the facts before them that Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic material. 5. That the penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by her. 2. The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to the show cause notice dated 26/3/2013 for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that from a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge, for which the penalty is proposed to be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble Apex Court looked into the facts before them that Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice. The non-striking of the irrelevant portion in the show-cause notice means that the Assessing Officer is not firm about the charge against the assessee and the assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of section 271(1)(c) he has to respond. 10. In Chandra Prakash Bubna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata , (ITAT Kolkata Bench) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 155, it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing out any specific charge for which penalty had been imposed, penalty was liable to be deleted. 11. The settled legal position on the issue, as enshrined in the aforesaid cases, is apparent and we arrive at the considered view that the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
