TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.2009 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 419/CTK/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - Shri N. S. Saini, AM And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM Assessee by : Shri G.Naik/R.K.Kar, AR Revenue by : Shri S.K.Dash, CITDR ORDER Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental Representative could not controvert the above submission of ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2014 levied penalty of ₹ 2,73,922/-. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment 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, the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
