TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] . The notice u/s. 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. Appeal of assessee allowed. - I.T.A. No. 230/Asr/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - Dr. M.L. Meena, Member (A) And Anikesh Banerjee, Member (J) For the Appellant : K.R. Jain, Adv. For the Respondents : S.M. Surendra Nath, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM The instant appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Akhnoor. Jammu Dated:-15.12.2016 Sir, Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10 it appears to me that you:- * have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish under section 139(1) or by a notice given under section 139(2)/148 of the income tax act, 1961, No; dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued. * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 241) against which Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the department stood dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported as 73 Taxmann.com 248. The notice u/s. 274/271(1)(c) of the Act is not carrying the specific limb. Therefore, this is a case where both the parts of the offences i.e., concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were involved. The decision of Jaipur Tribunal (Third Member) in the case of Grass Field Farms and Resorts P. Ltd. (159 ITD 31) was referred to confirm the impugned penalty. Finally, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents as cited aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned penalty is not sustainable on legal grounds. Hence, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
