TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notice is to be held as defective. See CIT vs SSA’S Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A Nos. 1988 & 1989Kol/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member, And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR For The Respondent : None appeared for the Revenue ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: These two appeals by Assessee are arising out of separate orders dated 18-08-2014 of CIT(A),Central-III, Kolkata for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, wherein he confirmed the penalties of ₹ 8,54,903/- and ₹ 7,46,067/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the assessee filed all the details as required by the AO. The AO accepted the said return as filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and treated the same as undisclosed income as the assessee failed to file the return u/s. 139 of the Act within due date. 5. Thereafter, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings for both the A.Ys under consideration by issuing notices u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty proceedings the AR of the assessee contended that the assessee was born in Sikkim on 26-04-1975 and since then he has been residing in Sikkim. The AR of the assessee also contended that non Sikkimese individuals are enjoying the exemption u/s. 10(26AAA) of the Act till A.Y 2007-08 and a Writ Petition h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under clause ( c) of sub-section (1), be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income. 7. The ld AR of the assessee apart from reiterating the facts also brought to the notice of the Bench that no specific charge was mentioned in the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e, whether assessee concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR argued that the show cause notice issued for penalty proceedings was defective and hence, the penalty levied is bad in law and in support of this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs SSA S Emerald Meadows in ITA No. 380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 which was later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e, whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
