Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the lower authorities and arguments addressed by the authorized representatives of both the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:-

"as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?"

8. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that in order to initiate the penalty proceedings, the AO has failed to specify in the show- cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act if the assessee has concealed 4 ITA No.2550/Del./2016 the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory-359ITR 565, CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows -73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (Revenue's SLP dismissed in 242 taxman 180) and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in ITA 475/2019 order dated 02.08.2019.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows - (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue quashing the penalty by the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice has held as under:-

"Section 274, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Procedure for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271 (1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, therefore, there was no substantial question of law arising for determination - Whether since there was no merit in SLP filed by revenue, same was liable to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]"

13. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) while deciding the identical issue held as under :-

"21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner 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 of2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016."

14. Following the decisions rendered in the cases of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows and Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.

15. Even otherwise in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 in identical set of facts and circumstances a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated and has been quashed by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 2644/Del/2017 on ground of valid notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.