TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 5-5-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member, And Shri N.K. Billaiya Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv For the Revenue : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the CIT(A) - 2, New Delhi dated 28.02.2019 pertaining to A.Y 2014-15. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 7,99,90,570/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] and, in particular, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such order is made under section 271. 5. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the notice is not clear as to whether the proceedings have been initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd ITA No. 475 of 2019 order dated 02.08.2019. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently stated that in the assessment order itself, while making addition of ₹ 23.53 crores, filing of inaccurate particular of income was detected and penalty has also been levied f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted . 9. Moreover, the penal proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to demonstrate under which limb he is proposing levy of penalty. 10. On identical circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [supra] has held as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
