TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t without specifying any particular limb and finally vide penalty order dated 30.03.2019 imposed the penalty on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee by way of raising the plea which is legal in nature, 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 first, before dwelling into the merits of the case. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] observed where AO proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the standard proforma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J. M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.08.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (in short Ld. Commissioner ), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings against the Assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of addition of Rs.1,60,17,297/- on account of disallowance of sundry balances written off, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 07.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2.1 The Assessing Officer, therefore, after giving show cause notices 07-03-2006, 16-08-2016, 09-09-2016 and 18-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally vide penalty order dated 30.03.2019 imposed the penalty on furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1 The Assessee by way of raising the plea which is legal in nature, 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 first, before dwelling into the merits of the case. 6. 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 part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort '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 appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6.1 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 6.3 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-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
