Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sh. Anil Talwar, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-Ii, Chandigarh on 7 August, 2018
9. In yet another alternate argument, the ld. counsel for the assessee
submitted that the difference estimated by the Assessing Officer is just 4% of
the total value estimated by the Assessing Officer and it cannot be ignored that
such addition has been made with GP rate 39.20% which is also taken on
arbitrary manner. Referring to the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Shri Anil Talwar vs. DCIT vide ITA No.357 to
361/CHD/2018 dated 07.08.2018, he submitted that under somewhat similar
circumstances, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the
Assessing Officer and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) holding that merely because the
additions have been sustained in the quantum proceedings same is not good
enough reasons to initiate the penalty. He accordingly submitted that the
penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) which has been sustained
by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Harigopal Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 2002
8. In another plank of argument, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that
while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer has not stated the limb
under which the penalty proceedings are being initiated. He has simply
mentioned penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961 are being
initiated separately. Referring to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, copy of
which is placed at page 21 of the Paper Book, he submitted that inappropriate
words in the said notice have not been struck off. Relying on various decisions,
he submitted that when the inappropriate words are not struck of it is not
understood as to under which limb of Act, the Assessing Officer has levied
penalty and under such circumstances the penalty proceedings stand vitiated.
For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s SSA'S Emerald Meadows vide ITA
No.380 of 2015 order dated 23.11.2015. He submitted that the Hon'ble High
Court in the above decision, following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in
the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565,
7
ITA No.2974/Del/2015
had upheld the decision of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty and dismissed the
appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the notice issued by the
Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is bad in law since it did not specify under
which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings have been initiated. He
submitted that the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.