TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e jurisdictional High Court restoring the addition, A.O. further issued notice Dated 02.05.2011 in which A.O. did not mention any such fact in the notice which is reproduced above. Thus, A.O. has not clarified in the notice as to for which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee, whether for concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. See Jagdamba Prasad Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 35(1), New Delhi [ 2019 (1) TMI 1200 - ITAT DELHI ] and M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.2238/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2019 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on 23.03.2001 under section 143(3) but has not pointed out as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act penalty proceedings have been initiated. On the same day of the assessment order Dated 23.03.2001, the A.O. issued show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, Dated 23.03.2001 in which A.O. has mentioned as under : have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 3.1. He has further submitted that after passing of the Order by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court sustaining the addition on account of unexplained gift on merit, the A.O. further issued notice Dated 02.05.2011 before levy of the penalty which reads as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re levy of the penalty would not be fatal to the case of Revenue. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) in which it was held that the assessee had understood purport and import of notice, and hence, no prejudice was caused to the assessee. This Judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court is confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC). The Ld. D.R. also filed written submissions highlighting the same facts and other decisions of the Tribunal that penalty in such circumstances is wholly justified. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is filed at page 1 of the Paper Book. In the said notice the AO has mentioned have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5 . In this notice the AO has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act that assessee have concealed the particulars of the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. AO has not specified in the notice as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act a show cause notice has been issued against the assessee for levy of the penalty. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) confirmed the order of the Tribunal by dismissing the Departmental ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional ground in this regard. Since the notice dated 31/12/2013 is void, bad in law and illegal, therefore, entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra). The decision relied upon by the Ld. DR, thus, would not support the case of Revenue. ITA.No.1834/Del./2016 : 6. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the authorities below and quashed the penalty proceedings. Penalty cancelled. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 5.1. In this case the Tribunal has followed the Judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
