TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant penalty notice to point out that the irrelevant portion, viz. furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of such income was not struck off by the AO. It is observed that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya [ 2015 (12) TMI 43 - ITAT KOLKATA ] had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the identical fact situation and the order passed by the AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was held to be invalid by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Another -vs.-Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] In our opinion, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notices issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of ₹ 3,43,310/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer vide his appellate order dated 21.06.2017. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised a new pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order dated 06.11.2015 in ITA No. 1303/KOL/2010 by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Another -vs.-Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 is squarely applicable in the present case. It is also noted that a similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal CIT -vs.- Bijoy Kr. Agarwal (ITAT No. 272 of 2017 dated 02.04.2019), wherein the decision of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court holding that the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) without specifying which of the two contraventions, the assessee is guilty of was defective and the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
