TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade against him so that he can respond accordingly. Having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued the notice dated 28.12.2011 under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 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) of the Act and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable - Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 7649/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2022 - Shri N.K. Billai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2.1 The Assessee challenged these disallowances inter-alia amongst others disallowances/additions, in appeal before the then ld. CIT(A), who vide its order in quantum appeal, though deleted most of the other additions , however affirmed the disallowances of Rs.3,33,893/- on account of electricity expenses and Rs.11,08,598/- out of Rs. 1.5Crores on account of property loss claimed by the Assessee. 3. The Assessing Officer there after initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued statutory notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the Act on dated 28.12.2011 for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately, vide order dated 25.07.2014,imposed a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issued the notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying any particular limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The Assessee challenged the Imposition of penalty mainly on the basis of notice itself, therefore we deem it appropriate to decide the legal issue involved in the instant case, instead of going into merits of the case. 7.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the Assessee, has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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: 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. 7.4 The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
