TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- I, Raipur [Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 18.06.2018. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through audio-visual medium on account of Government guidelines on account of prevalent situation of Covid-19 Pandemic, both the parties have placed their written as well as oral arguments during this online hearing process. 3. The appellant has taken following grounds in this appeal; 1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer 3(3) dated 14/03/2017 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is bad in Law and Invalid. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,00,000/-. 4. On the facts and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in not recording any satisfaction whatsoever much less as contempl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,95,000/-. Job work expenses were claimed to have paid to three persons. As per details submitted by the assessee, the address of the job work contractor is either same or close to that of the assessee. The job work payment was made at Rs. 10,45,000/-, 10,45,000/- 16,00,000/- to the contractors who have offered a meagre profit i.e. below the taxability limit. On field enquiry it was noticed that no such job work is undertaken at the factory premises of the assessee or at the factory addresses of the parties to whom payments were made under this head. On verification of books of accounts produced during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that there were no vouchers for the job work expenses. In response to show cause notice the assessee stated that the contract work was undertaken at the sites by the contractors. The site is various agricultural lands of the farmers and the nodal agency paying for such sale and installation is CG Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. The assessee could not produce any person, like the farmer or any authority from the agency or evidence in support of its claim. Summons u/s. 131 was issued to each recipient. When they attended it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT(A) is as under : Finding of the CIT(A) 2.3 As per the appellant the notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated 01/03/2013 is not valid since un-relevant paras of the notice have not been struck off. Further, as per the appellant the second notice dated 11/01/2017 is not in proper format. There is no submission by the assessee on the merit of the case. I find that in the notice dated 01/03/2013 the tick mark sign has been placed on Para (c) and not on paras (a) and (b). Para (c) reads as have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It means that the notice was in respect of offences mentioned in Para(c) and not in respect of the offences in para (a) or (b). Further the notice dated 11/01/2017 is an intimation of fixing a date to allow opportunity to the appellant to appear and represent his case. On these facts the assessee's objection raised is hereby rejected and the appeal is dismissed. 3.0 Appeal is dismissed. 6. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR took us through the relevant facts of the case vis- -vis paper book filed on record and in support of legal ground, it is submitted that, the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely covered by the decision of the Supreme court in the case of CIT v SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73. Taxmann.com 248(SC) and Dilip N. Shroff v JCIT[207] 291 ITR 519 (SC) The Supreme Court in the case held that the AO, while issuing a Notice for initiating a penalty proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should apply his mind and make it clear as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the taxpayer had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That since the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned under which limb of the Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the Notice for initiating Penalty proceedings has been issued, the said Notice and entire Penalty proceedings are not valid. The decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court to consider the question of Law for Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. Section 271(1)(c): Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal issue and the relevant finding is extracted for the sake of brevity 6. Heard. On the similar facts of no specific charge the coordinate bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT (supra) has deleted the entire penalty levied by Assessing Officer. The relevant paras 5 to 6 of the said order of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted hereunder : 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) has observed as under: 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 had in law as it did not specify whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
