TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(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 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 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.Nos.789, 790, 791, 792, & 793/Chny/2018, I.T.A. Nos.794, 795, 796, 797 and 798/Chny/2018. - - - Dated:- 23-1-2019 - Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member And Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT. ORDER PER BENCH. Except ITA Nos.793 and 798/Chny/2018, other appeals filed by the assesses have common grounds and challenges the validity of the penalty levied u/s.271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) . 2. Ld. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings. Notice issued to the assessee under these Sections, for all the years are typically worded for both the assessees and that for assessment year 2006-07, in the case of R. Pannerselvam (HUF) is reproduced hereunder:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOMETAX ACT, 1961 (Notice u/s 271(1)(c) PAN AAAHR 0200H Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Chennai 600 034. Dated 30.12.2011. To R. Pannerselvam (HUF) No.43, Rohini Vasantham, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2006 -07, it appears to me that you: have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you are required to furnish by 0 notice given under Section 22( 1)/22(2)/34 of the Income-tax Act. 1922 or which you are required to furnish under Section 139 (1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 No dated . or hove without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said Section 139( 1) or by such notice. have without reasonable cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 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 (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 on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT 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 deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nng Factory [reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565]. The Division Bench after analyzing the subject in an elaborate manner and relating to several decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court held that merely because the assessee agreed for addition and when the assessee paid the tax and the interest thereof in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income, it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment, so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1) of the Act. 5. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal especially when it is admitted that the decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory has attained finality. Thus, for the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Their lordship has upheld the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Original Kerala Jewellers (surpa) which has been relied on by the ld. AR. In the circumstances, penalty levied on the assessees for the impugned assessment years are set aside. Appeals of the assessees in ITA 789, 790,791, 792, 794, 795, 796 and 797/Chny/2018 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
