Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.2 The Ld. AR finally argued that the penalty notice issued, does not spell out under which limb of section 271(l)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was proposed. For this proportion reliance is placed on CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factor [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar)(HC) and CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (SC) in CC No.11485/2016 dated 05.08.2016.

8.3 Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT bench at Amritsar in third member case titled as Harvinder Wine Shop {ITA No.165, 166, 167/ASR/2015, decided on dated 06.02.2019} considered the identical issue and decided in favour of the assessee. The assesse has also placed reliance of following judgments specifically on the identical facts such as penalty based on Explanation 5A of Section 271(I)(C) of the Act and submitted the co-ordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi has decided both the appeal on merit as well as legal ground qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act in favour of the assessee.

10.3 Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Versus M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment in M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows case {(2016) 73 taxmann.com 248}, rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of the decision made in the case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra), by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below :-

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."

10.4 The Co-ordinate benches in the similar and identical circumstances, in the cases of Dy. CIT Coimbatore Vs Sh. R. Elanngovan, Karamradai 641(104) {ITA no. 1119/CHNY/2017 & C.O. no. 75/CHNY/2017} Chennai Bench, Anuj Mathur Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (2018) 53 CCH 0276 Jaipur Bench and Sh. Ravinder Aggarwal and Ors Versus Dy CIT, Jammu {ITA Nos.410, 409, 406, 405, 402 & 401 of 2018 decided on 04-04-2019 Amritsar bench, while relying upon the judgments passed in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, (supra) and M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) by the Karnatka High Court, deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271AAB of the Act as well .

10.5 The coordinate bench of ITAT at Delhi in Tripat Kaur, New Delhi v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA No.1829 to 1833/Del/2015 decided on dated 08th May, 2018 and M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA Nos.40 to 45/Asr/2017 & 49 & 50/Asr/2017 Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT ITA No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016, decided on dated 14th August, 2018, wherein penalty was imposed under Explanation 5A of section 2781(1)© of the act, while respectfully following the judgments of Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) and apex Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows (Supra), deleted the penalty .