Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 777

ear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. See M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7196/Del/2017 - 10-5-2019 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. & Sh. Ashvini Kumar, Adv. For the Department : Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 21.9.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee s appeal read as under:- 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) -18 New Delhi, erred in law in upholding the order of the Ld AO, i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

₹ 1,48,329/- of the tax sought to be evaded on concealment / inaccurate particulars of ₹ 4,80,029/- u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. Therefore, he further stated that the penalty imposed is liable to be quashed on legal ground as the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions.: - ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of ABR Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6236/Del/2015 dated 4.12.2017. - ITAT, A Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in ITA No. 5788 to 5790/Del/2014. - Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - Apex Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith the provisions of law as well as the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee. WE noe that no specific .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

erald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) 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 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus 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 - decided in favour of assessee. ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows - Hon ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

SA s Emerald Meadows - Hon ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) 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 - Decided in favour of assessee. 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. iv) ITAT, D Bench, New Delhi decision dated 26.5.2017 in the case of Rajender Jain vs. ACIT passed in ITA No. 6804/Del/2013 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. I am satisfied that it is a fit case .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In our view the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)( .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||