TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the decision of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory Ors. [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the CIT Vs Samsaon Perincherry [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that no penalty has to be levied where the AO has not stated in the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) one of the two limb on which the penalty is proposed to be levied. Even on merit the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been stated that where the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars of expenses in the return filed even though the claim of assessee is not correct, penalty cannot be imposed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate, and ought to have accepted, that the appellant neither concealed any particulars of income, nor did it furnish any inaccurate particulars of such income. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the levy of penalty of ₹ 22,85,000/- be cancelled. 2. Your appellant craves leave to alter, modify, amend or delete the above ground of appeal, or to add one or more new ground(s), as may be necessary. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessment was made in the case of assessee u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2011 determining total loss of ₹ 4,78,54,805/-. The difference between the returned loss and assessed loss was on account of disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and finally imposed penalty at para 6 equal to ₹ 67,20,068/- which works out to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Ld. AR vehemently submitted that it is settled law that the AO has to strike down the irrelevant of the two limbs in the penalty notice issued u/s.274/271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the AO has failed to do so in the notice issued dated 26.12.2011, a copy of which is placed at page 74 of the paper book. This is clear that the assessee has not been given an opportunity to defend itself as to how the penalty is being imposed on it. Ld. AR submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory Ors., 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and the CIT Vs Samsaon Perincherry (Supra) in which it has been held that no penalty has to be levied where the AO has not stated in the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act one of the two limb on which the penalty is proposed to be levied. Even on merit the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein it has been stated that where the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars of expenses in the return filed even though the claim of assessee is not correct, penalty cannot be imposed. In the present case before us the disallowance was made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act to ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
