9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11. 2. M/s. Sudhir Engineering Company was transferred to Sudhir Power Projects Ltd. vide slump sale agreement dated 20.08.2007. Pursuant to such transfer, all its assets and liabilities were taken over by M/s. Sudhir Power Projects Ltd. Thereafter, Sudhir Engineering Company stood dissolve vide dissolution deed dated 30.04.2007. 3. Therefore, there are two appellants. However, the underlying facts in the issues are identical in all the captioned appeals, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. ITA No.2141/Del/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) - In this case assessment was framed u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 153 A vide order dated 22.12.2011. The assessment order trav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued u/s. 274 of the Act stating that in the notice the AO has not specified under which limb the penalty is leviable. 8. Per contra the DR vehemently stated that in the assessment order itself the AO has clearly mentioned that penalty is leviable for furnishing inaccurate particulars and, therefore, non mentioning in the notice has caused no project to the assessee. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The notice u/s. 274 is as under :- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 Asstt, Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-25, New Delhi DATED:-28/12/2011 "TO M/s Sudhir Power Projects Ltd 507-509 International trade Tower Nehru Place New Delhi W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka) IT Appeal No 380 of 2015 was dismissed. It was held that a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) not specifying the limb on which penalty was initiated was invalid and illegal, and consequently penalty proceedings were null and void. The relevant extract of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the said case is reproduced below: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23.The appeals are accordingly dismissed." 12. In the light of the above we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. We order accordingly. 13. The second proposition made by the counsel is that the assessee claimed depreciation inadvertently as the flats were shown in the block of assets in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
