9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lka Gautam, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J. M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, Dated 08.05.2017, for the A.Y. 2006-2007, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that return of income was filed on 28.03.2007 declaring income of Rs. 1,16,639/-. The A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5." 3.1. He has submitted that A.O. has not specified as to for which limb penalty proceedings have been initiated whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, levy of the penalty is illegal and bad in Law. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 5. We have consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the case of CIT vs., M/s. SSA's Emérald Meadows reported in 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (HC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue upholding the view of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty in the similar circumstances. The Judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order 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 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
