TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the last para of the assessment order stating that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also submitted inaccurate particulars of its income. In the penalty order also at various paragraphs there is inconsistency with respect to the nature of default committed by the assessee. In paragraph number 1 the AO stated that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In paragraph number 3 AO states that assessee has concealed the particulars of income. In paragraph number 4 the AO states that the penalty is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We are of the considered view that when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. 3. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual who was assessed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act of Rs. 12942910/- wherein, an addition of Rs. 1.25 crores was made on account of undisclosed income. Consequently, the assessment was passed at Rs. 12943910/-. While making the addition the ld AO initiated the penalty proceedings in the assessment order stating that since the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and also submitted inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Consequently, the addition of the above sum challenged by the assessee before the various forums was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 395 ITR 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the addition has been confirmed by the honourable Delhi High Court in the present case and therefore the assessee has concealed the income. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Raj Hans Towers private limited vs Commissioner of income tax in 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) to support the case of the revenue. 6. Assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal precisely challenging the initiation of the penalty proceedings with respect to the specific charge. However, looking to the facts of the case, we do not adjudicate on admission of the additional ground but proceed to decide the issue on the merits of the case as per the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding 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(1) (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 Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
