TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. 5122/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2021 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv For the Revenue : Shri Jigar Rawal, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-24, New Delhi dated 29.06.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: 1) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve .* have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No. 364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11 A.M. /P.M. On 23/07/2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made u/s 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If you do not with to avail yourself of this opportunity, or being heard in person or through authorised person, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any/ea.rch order is made u/s 271(1)(c). D.C.I.T. C.C.-11, New Delhi Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-11, New Delhi-55 6. The ld. DR vehemently state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) ,vide paragraph 60, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :- 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar) the Hon ble Karnataka High Court Considered the question of law as to,- Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. And the Hon be High Court answered the same in favour of the assessee observing that: 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 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Relevant observations of the Hon ble High Court read that,- 21. The Respondent had challenging 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 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 Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
