9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty order u/s 271(1)(c) even though the same is barred by limitation in terms of provisions of section 275 of the Income tax Act, 1961. (ii) That the order being passed after expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of Appellate Tribunal is received, the same is illegal, time barred and without jurisdiction as per the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act. (iii) That issue of limitation being a legal ground, the Ld. CIT(A) should have adjudicated the same. 2(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even though there is no case of recording of proper satisfaction in terms of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss of Rs. 32,94,440/- with the following additions: i. Addition of Rs. 7,10,55,000/- on account of accommodation entries taken in the shape of Unsecured loan. ii. Addition of Rs. 6,65,00,000/- on account of undisclosed cash receipts. iii. Addition of Rs. 1,58,92,460/- on account of unexplained cash credits in cash Books. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated on the above addition vide penalty notice dated 20.12.2010. The Penalty order was passed on 30.03.2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assesee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is relating to limitation which is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the CIT(A) was right in confirming the penalty order as there is an element of concealment of income as the Tribunal has confirmed the quantum of Rs. 63,33,260/- in the quantum appeal, therefore, penalty was properly imposed. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) which confirmed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407. The Hon'ble High Court held that when the case against the assessee concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the contention raised by the assessee regarding notice issued did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
