TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.6427/Del./2017, ITA.No.6428/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2021 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Gaurav Bansal, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals by different Assessees are directed against the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-38, New Delhi, Dated 28.07.2017, for the A.Y. 2008-2009, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the outset submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Dy. CIT, Circle, Bulandshahr. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, And Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates For Revenue : Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, Dated 29.06.2015, for the A.Y. 2008-2009, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not pointed-out as to for which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act penalty have been initiated. Therefore, levy of penalty is illegal and bad in law and in support of the contention relied upon several decisions of the Tribunal and Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Another vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows reported in 73 taxmann.com 248. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable in the matter. The A.O. issued show cause notice dated 27th December, 2010 before levy of the penalty against the assessee. However, the A.O. in its show cause notice failed to specify in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. 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. 3.3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that penalty order may be set aside and penalty order may be cancelled in both the appeals. 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the issue is covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Bharat Immunological Biological Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
