TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the relevant limb so as to make the Assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. Having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued the notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which is bad in law, hence can not be considered a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable as held by the various Court including Apex Court and hence, we have no hesitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (P) Ltd. (2021) 130 Taxmann.com 379 (SC). 3. On the contrary the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that order under challenge does not suffer from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality and hence needs no interference . 4. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee has challenged the penalty order on various grounds. In the instant case, the AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274read with 271(1)(c) of the Act, without specifying under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for conceal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 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 lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 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 Section 271(l)(c) the penalty 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 Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
