TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that penalty is not leviable in the matter. The A.O. issued show cause notice dated 27th December, 2010 before levy of the penalty against the assessee. A.O. in its show cause notice failed to specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as rightly pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. In this case, the assessee filed return of income declaring loss of ₹ 5.75 crores. The A.O. noted that provision for bad debt of ₹ 1,01,81,411/- was debited to P L account. The A.O. noted that such provision is not allowable unless it is ascertained liability. The A.O. accordingly made addition of the amount and assessed the net loss at ₹ 4.74 crores. The A.O. on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act issued prior to levy of the penalty, in which the A.O. has stated as under : have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that A.O. has not pointed-out as to for which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as rightly pointed-out by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. The entire penalty proceedings are, therefore, vitiated and no penalty is leviable. On this score itself similar view is taken by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241. This decision is confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
