CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241High Court2016#64 most cited

What is CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows authority for?

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

791

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · defective notice · vitiates penalty proceedings · Karnataka High Court

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

M/S. Millenium Automation & System Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5698/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charymillennium Automation & Systems Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-48/09, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-6(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm4538N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.P.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Charythis Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2015 In Appeal No.499/14-15 Passing By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short “Cit(A)”]-6, Delhi For 2011-12 Assessment Year Where Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.5,55,000/- Levied By The Ao. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Purchase & Sale Of Computer & Accessories & Have Was Also Deriving Rental Income. For Ay 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 28.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,54,77,981/- & During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”), The Ao Observed That The Assessee Had Declared Income From House Property In Respect Of Rent Receipt Of Rs.1,20,28,152/- & Claimed Eligible Deduction U/S 24 Of The Act 1 Besides Depreciation In Respect Of The Building. The Ao Disallowed Depreciation Of Rs.16,27,486/- & Added Back To The Income Of The Assessee. Simultaneously, Ao

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Millennium Automation & Systems Ltd., vs DCIT, E-48/09, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-6(1), Phase-II, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. PAN-AACCM4538N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S.P.Gupta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 14.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2017 ORDER PER K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.08.2015 in appeal No.499/14-15 passing by the Commissioner of Inc…

Sri Chandan Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-24(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 293/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.293/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Chandan Das Vs. I.T.O, Ward – 24(3), Kolkata 68/38, Jessore Road, Amarpally, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopd 6585 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By :Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Acit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: 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. 2. 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 & 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 & 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 & Ginning Factory (Supra) & Held As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri David Z. Chawngthu, ACIT, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.293/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Chandan Das Vs. I.T.O, Ward – 24(3), Kolkata 68/38, Jessore Road, Amarpally, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADOPD 6585 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Respondent by :Shri David Z. Chawngthu, ACIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The appeal filed by the as…