A.LINGA REDDY, SHANKARPALLY, R.R.DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, VIKARABAD, VIKARABAD

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 597, 598, 599, 600/Hyd/2017 A.Ys: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 Shri A. Linga Reddy, vs. The Income Tax Officer Prop: Swapna Wines Ward-1 Shankarapally, Vikarabad. R.R. District PAN- AETPA3504J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B. Shanthi Kumar Shri K. Gopala Krishna Revenue by : Date of hearing : 08-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 08-05-2018 ORDER PER SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: All these appeals are filed by the assessee directed against separate but identical orders of the Ld. CIT(A), passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’ has been confirmed. The assessee has filed the following additional grounds of appeal. “1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the A.O did not specify the reason for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 in the assessment order dt. 31.03.2015, as to whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the A.O did not specify the reason for levying penalty u/s 27(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 in the Show cause notice dt. 31.03.2015 as to whether for

2 ITA Nos. 597, 598, 599, 560/Hyd/2017 Shri A. Linga Reddy, Hyderabad. concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. 1.1 As there are legal grounds and all the facts are on record, I admit these gounds.

“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the A.O u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT 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 CIT 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”. 2.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP No. 11485/2016 dated 05.08.2016 in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ordered as follows: