9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis for initiation of proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 412/JP/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2017 - Shri Kul Bharat, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate) Revenue by : Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl. CIT) ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)- I, Jaipur dated 02.02.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that it has been held that the assesee is not entitled for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act with respect to certain Khasras and accordingly on proportionate basis exemption to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of sale of agriculture land and computed capital gain while framing the assessment the assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment and submitting inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of sum of ₹ 24,65,838/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. 4.1 On the contrary, the ld. Departmental Representatives opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence of the conditions mentioned in section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) and 1(B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision (g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings because of the deeming provision contained in sub-section(1B). (h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to be orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) and the commissioner. (i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. (j) The imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and not the assessing authority. (P) Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. (Q) Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. (R) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. (S) Taking up o penalty proceedings on one limb an finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. (T) The penalty proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be suggested that section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the assessing officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect, it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely) or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on the basis that as required by law the land in question was not an agricultural land. 4.3 It is the case of the assessee, the assessee made on claim of the agricultural land. However, the same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, it is contented by the ld. Counsel that the Assessing Officer did not considered the relevant Khasara Girdavari therefore on wrong appreciation of facts in quantum proceedings additions came to be confirmed. It is also submitted that the question of law has been admitted by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee in DB Income Tax Appeal 221/2016 under these facts it is prayed by the assessee that the penalty has imposed is not justified it is also stated that penalty proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
