TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT [ 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] has also noticed that where the AO issues notice u/s 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s return U/s. 139 (1) of the IT Act, 1961; c. For that the Ld. AO and CIT(A) are erred in law imposing aforesaid penalty in absence of any concealment of income based on suspicion and surmises which in no circumstances can have any evidentiary value. d. For that the decisions were relied upon to substantiate that as there was no positive finding of concealment of income the imposition of penalty was bad in. The learned AO as well as CIT (A) misunderstood the doctrine of ratio decidendi by holding that the decisions have no application which is bad in law; e. For that, any other grounds incidental to the grounds of this case may kindly be permitted to urge at the time of hearing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/- for A.Y.2012-2013, ₹ 80,076/- for A.Y.2013-2014, ₹ 1,07,648/- for A.Y.2014-2015 and ₹ 23,045/- for A.Y.2015-2016, respectively. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and findings of AO, upheld the penalty so levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in all the appeals for the above assessment years under consideration. 5. Further feeling aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. At the outset, ld. Assessee Representative (AR) placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifying the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income or assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income , so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of the judgment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(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 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. 10. The facts of the present appeals are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows(supra) and, therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the case of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) in all the appeals under consideration and cancel the penalty order of the Assessing Officer dated 25.04.2018 levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ₹ 63,657/- for A.Y.2011-2012, ₹ 2,10,114/- for A.Y.2012-2013, ₹ 80,076/- for A.Y.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
