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

Category of Documents

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

2019 (5) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble opportunity to respond and deal with the particular charge on which the penalty was levied. In our view, the penalty order in such a scenario is clearly bad in law and can not be sustained. The case of the assessee is clearly supported by the decision relied upon by the assessee as stated hereinabove in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Mrs. Piedade Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1458 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where the AO has failed to state particularly the one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied then the penalty order would be bad in law as the assessee was not given proper opportunity to respond to the charge on which the penalty was levied. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esides disallowance of ₹ 32,922/- under section 14A read with rule 8D2(iii). The AO initiated the penalty proceedings as mentioned in page 6 of the assessment order for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also notice dated 06.12.2010 was issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act without mentioning or stating the particular limb on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. Finally, the penalty was levied in the penalty order dated 29.03.2014 for concealment of income as stated in page 6 of the penalty order. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the submissions and contentions raised during the appellate proceedings and hence the assessee is in appeal bef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1.2017 • Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT (Bom HC ) 392 ITR 4 dated 05.01.2017 • CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (Kar HC) 73 taxmann.com 241 dated 23. 11. 20 15 • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) • K.M. Bhatia vs. CIT 62 TAXMAN 430 (GUJ.) • CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (GUJ.) • Pr.CITvs.BaisettyRevathi(APHC)ITANo684of2016datedl3.7.2017 • Shri S. Narendrakumar & Co. vs. ACIT- ITA No.7334/Mum/2016 dated 22.03.2019 • ACIT vs. BhushanKamalnayanVora [2017] 60 ITR(T) 82 (Mumbai -Trib.) • Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITA 1596& 1597 /M/2014 dated 01.09.2017 • Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT - ITA No. 1261/Mum/201 1 dated 17.05.2017 & .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowance made under section 14A of the Act as the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the annual accounts filed before the revenue authorities. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Pr. CIT vs. Gruh Finance Ltd. (2018) 100 taxman.com 104 SC and CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 SC. The Ld. A.R., while summing up his arguments, submitted that the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 06.12.2010 is bad in law for the various reasons as stated hereinabove and may kindly be quashed as being void ab initio. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below by submitting that the order passed by AO under section 271(1)(c) was as per the provisions of the Act and was rightly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8) 218 CTR 359) 6. MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT (38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/(2013) 263 CTR 1 7. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co vs. CIT (116 Taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556) 8. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co (91 ITR 467) 9. Steel Ingots Ltd. vs. CIT (296 ITR 228) 10. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/(2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/(2009) 226 CTR 105 11. CIT vs. R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd. (184 Taxman 372 (SC)/(2009) 313 ITR 397 (SC)/(2009) 227 CTR 635) 12. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2010) 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/(2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)/(2001) 169 CTR 489 (SC) 7. The Ld. D.R. also filed the written submissions at the time of hearing. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the one of the two limbs on which the penalty was proposed to be levied then the penalty order would be bad in law as the assessee was not given proper opportunity to respond to the charge on which the penalty was levied. The similar ratio has been laid down in the case of CIT vs. SSA SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 73 taxman.com 248. The case laws relied by the ld DR were carefully perused and we find that same are not of any help to the revenue when the issue is settled by the jurisdictional High court and also by the Hon ble Apex court as has been stated above. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perinche .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| 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.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||