TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SA Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed is directly on the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the fact that the quantum of additions were confirmed which tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 3. The return of income in this case was filed on 30/09/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 7,28,42,461/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 3/8/2009 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10/05/2010 at an income of Rs. 9,23,84,310/- and additions were made as under:- (i) disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 71,97,560/- (ii) disallowance on depreciation on non compete fees of Rs. 1,23,4,688/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) be sustained. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s Manjunatha and Ginni Factory and Ors. 359 ITR 565. The above principal was further affirmed by the Apex Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. M/s SSA Emerald Meadows. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Pri. CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Companies Limited 2019 (8) EMI 409. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that there is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
