TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A), Bareilly both dated 13/12/2017. The appeal in I.T.A. No.179 is against the penalty which the Assessing Officer had imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the appeal in I.T.A. No.180 is against the quantum addition. 2. At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- and on appeal before learned CIT(A) the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the same as there was delay in filing the appeal before him. Learned A. R. submitted that if the learned CIT(A) 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply states that you have concealed the particulars of income or furnished particulars of such income. For the sake of completeness, the notice issued by DCIT, Circle-II, Bareilly is reproduced below: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(l)(c) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAN- ADQPM7110E Dated:30.03.2016 To, Shri Sunil Kumar Manchanda 230A, Macnair Road, Prem Nagar, Bareilly. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2014-15 it appears to me that you- * have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565, has allowed relief to the assessee and has deleted the penalty. The relevant findings of the Tribunal, as recorded in para 8 onwards, are reproduced below: 8. We have perused the case records, considered the judicial pronouncements placed before us, analysed the facts 4 circumstances and we find that notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act is not specific and is ambiguous as to the charge under which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is levied; whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We take guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA S Em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. 9. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and the order of the Tribunal (supra), we hold that the notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued in the case of the assessee is bad in law, invalid and, therefore, liable to be quashed. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. Since the facts and the issue involved in ITA Nos.653 654/LKW/2016 are identical, following our view taken in ITA No.652/LKW/2016, we del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
