TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - ITA No.748 to 753/Ind/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K.C. Agrawal, CA For the Revenue : Shri R.S.Ambedkar, Sr.DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14,45,871/- 4 1990-91 Rs.57,95,390/- Rs.8,02,948/- 5 1991-1992 Rs.2.27,00,000/- Rs.2,78,415/- 6 1992-1993 Rs.1,09,15,723/- ₹ 3,66,275/- Against the levy of above penalty assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. The assessee is now in appeal raising following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 1987-88; Assessment Year 1987-88 'l.The learned CIT(A)-I Indore has erred in confirming the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271 (I)(c) of the Income Tax c and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is also wrong and bad in law as while initiating the penalty in the assessment Order there is no specific satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that for which default the penalty has been initiated either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Because there is no specific satisfaction of the Assessing Officer while initiating the penalty is itself clear from the notices issued u/s 271 (I)(c). 5. We find that similar grounds including additional grounds have been raised for Assessment Year 1988-89 to Assessment Year 1992-93 with the change of amount of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. At the outset Ld. Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Assessee has taken up the legal issue in this appeal challenging the legality of the penalty proceedings initiated by issuance of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act by contending that in the penalty notice no specific charge has been leveled against the assessee and the Ld.A.O has merely mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It has been agreed by both the parties that similar type of notices except the change of assessment years have been issued u/s 274 of the Act for the years under appeal. To adjudicate this issue we will have to go through the impugned notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 1987 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of judgment relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 10. We find that similar issue came up before the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court discussed the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT V/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT V/s SSA s Emeralad Meadows (supra) and held that on due consideration of the arguments of the Ld. counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not specify the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that Ld. Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty enforced by the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. We accordingly set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and direct to delete the penalty of ₹ 5,56,050/-, ₹ 20,24,236/-, ₹ 14,45,871/-, ₹ 8,02,948/-, ₹ 2,78,415/- and ₹ 3,66,275/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this legal ground itself. We accordingly allow ground No.1(c) raised by the assessee for all the years under appeal on the legality of the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been dealt and deleted on the preliminary legal points, other arguments of the assessee dealing with the merits of the levy of penalty are not been dealt with and the same are rendered academic in nature. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
