TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] will be applicable in the present case - Notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law - De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case. Thus, there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. SSA' Emerald Meadow. The extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. SSA' Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has been dismissed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
