Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 135 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specific mention in the show-cause notice issued u/s 274 - whether the assessee is guilty of having "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or of having "concealed particulars of such income", the initiation of penalty proceedings itself was bad in law - HELD THAT:- Whether the assessee is guilty of having "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or of having "concealed particulars of such income", the initiation of penalty proceedings itself was bad in law and the penalty order passed in pursuance thereof is liable to be quashed being invalid. He has invited our attention to the relevant penalty notice to point out that the irrelevant portion, viz. "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealed particulars of such income" was not struck off by the AO. It is observed that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya [2015 (12) TMI 43 - ITAT KOLKATA] had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the identical fact situation and the order passed by the AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was held to be invalid by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Another -vs.-Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] In our opinion, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya [2015 (12) TMI 43 - ITAT KOLKATA] by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Another -vs.-Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable in the present case.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|