9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act, 1961 on 27.02.2015 that is the date of the passing of the assessment order. The A.O. vide separate Order levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed copy of the show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act Dated 27.02.2015 at page-74 of the PB which was issued before levy of the penalty in which the A.O. has mentioned : "Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 4.1. The notice, thus, would show that A.O. was not satisfied as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) on the issue u/s. 14A and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after due verification of the claim of the assessee regarding no expenditure having been incurred and allowed the issue relating to Long Term Capital Loss treated as Business income of Rs. 91,39,000/- by deleted this addition. We further note that during the penalty proceedings, the AO vide his order dated 31.3.2014 imposed penalty of Rs. 36,58,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of all the four additions of Rs. 1,07,62,163/- mentioned in the grounds of appeal, as aforesaid, on the alleged ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 6.1 After perusing the assessment order, we find that AO also did not recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Karanataka High Court. Thus 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 - decided in favour of assessee." ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) - Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(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 - Decided in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
