TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. In notice dated 29.12.2006 and on 23.12.2011 issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, initiated penalty against the appellant for alleged concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income , that is to say, the specific default was not specified by the assessing officer in the notice issued. Hence since the notice u/s 274 has not been specified as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged concealment of income OR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f less deduction u/s 80HHC allowed amounting to₹ 64,007/-. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the legal position, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition on account of miscellaneous expenditure incurred for increase in authorized capital amounting to ₹ 41,012/-. 6. That the appellant, craves, leave to add/alter/delete/amend any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. On going through the record, we find that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of non compete fee, expenditure incurred for increase in authorized capital and wrong deduction claimed u/s 80HHC on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the penalty was proposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 7. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 8. The jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 475 of 2019, reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
