GHAZIABAD CONTAINER P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by CIT (A)-35, New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.

At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the order of the CIT(A) and submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A).

The Ld. DR submitted that the penalty is as per the law and relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in Para 4.15 that the penalty notice u/274 read with Section 271 dated 8/3/2016 is a format notice and thus it has not strike off the particular limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) has not dealt with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 as well as CIT Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) and CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar). Thus, the notice itself is defective in nature and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SSA Emerald Meadows (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Thus, there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadow. The extract of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in M/s SSA’ Emerald Meadows are as under which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '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 on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF 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."