TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 302/LKW/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2018 - Shri. T. S. Kapoor, Accountant Member And Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R. K. Vishwakarma, D.R. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 1/3/2017. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are reproduced hereunder:- 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and has arbitrarily held, that the assessee is liable for pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealment of income. 4. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a Society registered with the Registrar of Society and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of spices. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/9/2011 declaring Nil income which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 2/2/2012. The assessee-society is also registered with Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and claiming exemption under section 10(23B) of the Act. The assesseesociety was granted exemption under section 10(23B) of the Act till assessment year 2010-11. In the year under consideration, the assessee had applied for grant of renewal of exemption certificate from KVIC. Since the application for renewal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A.R. of the assessee further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Another vs. M/s SSA S Emerald Meadows in CC No.11485/2016 wherein the Hon'ble Apex upheld the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee, which was based upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 wherein it is held that if the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty proceedings is initiated, then such notice should be bad in law. 7. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the subordinate authorities. 8. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
