9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order dated 11-01-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, Kolkata for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein he confirmed the penalty of ₹ 5,04,710/- imposed u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the fol lowing grounds of appeal:- 1. For that the order of the Ld. C. I .T(A) is arbitrary, i l legal , excessive, perverse and bad in law. 2. For that the Ld CIT(A) er red in confirming the penalty when no specific charge of either concealment or submissions of inaccurate particular s was made. 3. For that the Ld. C. I .T(A) erred in confirming penalty under sec. 271(1) (c) when there was no concealment , the facts and figures with regard to the computation were duly disclosed in the accounts. 4. For that the Ld. C. I .T(A) er red in confirming the penal ty simply because the assessee's claim for agricultural income was not accepted even though the land holding of the assessee was accepted. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty confirmed is unjustified, not in accordance with law and is liable to be cancel led. 6. For that the order of the Ld. C. I .T(A) be modified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n notice u/section 274 and relied on the decisions specifically to say the initiation of penalty proceedings are not maintainable is reproduced herein below: The AR of the assessee filed written submission on 08/01/2006 during the appellate proceedings and contended inter-alia as under:- a. That the ownership of land of the assessee was accepted by the AO, hence he should have also accepted the agricultural income earned out of it. b. There is no specific charge mentioned in the showcause notice for penalty dated 29/12/2010 issued u/s 274 of the Act. The AO has not struck out the irrelevant part. c. On the basis of following judgments, the penalty order is legal and is liable to be quashed. 1. Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT, ITA No. 98/Kol/2013 Sri Birendra ath Saha Vs. DC1T 2. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court, CIT Vs Manu Eng. Works 122 ITR 306. 3. Hon'b1e Karnataka High Court Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 4. Kolkata ITAT C Bench, Ghosh Jewellery in ITA No. 2012/Koll2006 dt. 0811 0/20 15 7. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing that the Assessee failed to produce any evidence regarding the agriculture income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40, 370/- on which penalty is applicable. Thus. the AR argued that the AO had initiated tile penalty on one ground i.e. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty on another ground i.e. Concealment which is legally not correct. This contention of the AR cannot be accepted. It is clearly written in the operative part of the penalty order that penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the AR is trying to take advantage of small technical things which are not permissible under the Act. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the penalty was rightly levied for furnishing inaccurate particular of income by the AO and is thus confirmed. 8. Aggrieved by such order of the CIT-A, now the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the aforementioned grounds of appeal and contended that the AO initiated penalty proceedings on both the charges as mentioned in the notice issued u/s.274 of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that the penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars without mentioning the specific charge of offence committed by the assessee i.e whether he has concealed the income or furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO by estimating the sales outside the books of account. The CIT(A) estimated the yield and worked out the additional production, on this estimated additional production and applied average sale rate and worked out the additional sale at ₹ 15,50,306 which was rounded off to ₹ 15,50,000 and added to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal also estimated the yield on the basis of preceding year and the addition made by the learned CIT(A) had been sustained. The Hon ble High Court held that there should be conclusive evidence that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income for levying the penalty and the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
