SRI CHANDAN DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-24(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 18, Kolkata dated 28.01.2016 for A.Y 2010-11.

At the outset itself, at the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notices u/s. 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 13.12.2012 and served on the assessee wherein we note that the AO has not struck down the limb of charge/default for which the penalty is being initiated against the assessee. We find that the notice has been issued for having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. We note that in a similar case the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) has cancelled the penalty taking note of the fact that the penalty notice did not spell out clearly as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. We also find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) endorsed the same view in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and held as under: