9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) shows that there is non-application of mind thereby the penalty order is not sustainable - See M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1419/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Kamlesh Kapadia, AR Respondent by : Shri SS Iyengar, CIT-DR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -58, Mumbai, passed u/s. 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the Notice issued u/sec 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 32, 19,657/- was deducted and called for the explanations. The assessee filed the explanations referred at para 7 of the assessment order. Further, the A.O find that, the assessee has not submitted any details in respect of the professional fees and could not explain the nature of service, therefore under the provisions of DTAA, the receipts of ₹ 32,19,657/-are treated as Fees for technical services(FTS) and taxed @10% and the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act was passed on 22.02.2017.Subsequently, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The assessee has filed the submissions in the penalty proceedings explaining the nature of income. But the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and levied pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23/11/2015 in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows where an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. We consider it appropriate to refer to the operative part of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows (supra) is read as under: 2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CTORY (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 in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. We are of the opinion that penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is well accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meaning. Therefore, it was imperative for the AO to strike off irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him and so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
