TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. However, during the hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Application dated 16.4.2018 of the assessee seeking permission to raise additional ground, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and the decision in the case of M/s Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC). The additional ground raised by the assessee read as under:- The initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) without specifically mentioning whether the penalty is being sought to levy for concealment of income or furnishing wrong particulars of income is illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction. The said initiation deserves to be quashed as illegal abinitio. 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and has tried to justify the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty in dispute. However, she opposed to admit the additional ground. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. On the admission of additional ground, I find that the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and is squarely covered by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty Notice dated 09.12.2015 are reproduced as under:- ..it appears to me that you:- * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.30 AM/PM on 21.12.2015 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity to being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271. 8.1 After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 09.12.2015, I am of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. I am of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 271(1) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as well as in the penalty order dated 30.9.2013 AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) CIT Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) 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 (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a no. 5.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of ₹ 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of ₹ 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected. 8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the AO has passed the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
