TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 14-2-2023 - SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Department : Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-8, New Delhi dated 23.10.2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,39,31,919/- and deciding the appeal of the assessee in its favour despite of the fact that the assessee has filed incorrect MAT income and AO revised the MAT income in the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,39,31,919/- vide order dated 25.06.2018. Aggrieved by this the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions and examining the facts of the case deleted the penalty. Now aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is transpired from the record that since 29.06.2022 no one is attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing sent to the assessee at the address furnished in form no. 36 have been returned unserved with the postal remarks left or No such firm at this address . Therefore, the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.) at Para 63 which inter alia held that:- Para 63 In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: (p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income (q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. (r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt 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. 5.5 I find that the AO has not mentioned either in notice u/s 271(l)(c) or in assessment order as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above findings of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory and Delhi High Court in Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax v M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd, the penalty order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 6. The Revenue has not rebutted the finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
