TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. - ITA No.2257/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Ms. Himani Agrawal, CA For The Department : Shri Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr.DR ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2016 of CIT(A)- 2, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal by the assessee are as under :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the penalty order dated 25.09.2015 passed by Ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 1,69,497/- of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied penalty of ₹ 1,69,497/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referred to the copy of the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 18.03.2015 which is placed at page 15 of the Paper Book. Referring to the assessment order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer in the said order has mentioned that penalty proceedings are being initiated u/s 271(1)(c) separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Referring to the notice, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself the order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer should be set-aside and the penalty should be cancelled. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of ld. CIT(A) relied on the following decisions :- (i) Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 295 ITR 244. (ii) R. L. Traders vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT. (iii) CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., 327 ITR 510. (iv) CIT vs. Moser Baer India Ltd., 315 ITR 460. (v) CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd., 304 ITR 308. (vi) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593. (vii) B.A. Balasubramaniam Bros. Co. vs. CIT, 236 ITR 977. (viii) CIT vs. Gates Foam Rubber Co., 91 ITR 467. (ix) Steel Ingots Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 11. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 18.03.2015 shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings has been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We find the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) has observed as under :- 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
