TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated supra, clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass the order levying the penalty. As a consequence of our findings above, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5127/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2021 - Prashant Maharishi , Member ( A ) And K. Narasimha Chary , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : P. C. Yadvav , Adv. For the Respondents : Satpal Gulati , CIT / DR ORDER Per K. Narasimha Chary, J M Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see vide impugned order. 4. Challenging the validity of the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, the ld. AR contends that the learned Assessing Officer had omitted to specify the relevant charge that is, whether concealment or inaccurate particulars both in the assessment order and in the penalty notice thereby rendering the notice as vague. By placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565, Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar) and also the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ld. PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings 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 order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. 14. It is, therefore, clear that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s. 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s. 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
