TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. Also see DILIP N. SHROFF VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6957/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv., Shri Deapesh Garg, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er whether the show cause is issued to the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's. Emarld Meadows dated 11th January, 2017 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (CC No.11485/2016)/73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) has held that Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation. Hence, he submitted that penalty of ₹ 67,025/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) is, therefore, liable to be cancelled. 9. The D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below :- 2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid inspite the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 27I(1)(c) apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income or assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income , so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The penalty provisions of section 27l(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.1.2014 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show anon-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. 14. The facts of the present appeal are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows(supra) and, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the case of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following the same, we cancel the order of the Assessing Officer dated 27.02.2018 levying penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
