9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ancestral property was jointly / owned by two persons namely Sh.Mahavlr Singh & Sh.Sukhbir Singh. Thus on facts and in law two persons either constituted a joint family or Association of person/Body of Individual. 2. That the deposit in the bank account was in the joint Mahavir Singh and Sahansar Pal. The assumption that the deposit in the bank account constituted unexplained deposit of Mahavir Singh Individual was erroneous , illegal and untenable on facts and in law. 3. That the appellant in Individual status neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no legal warrant to initiate proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the assessee and confirmed penalty in dispute. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that Assessee is individual and neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He further stated that on facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no legal warrant to initiate proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the initiation of proceedings in the name of Mahavir Singh Individual being illegal, void and without jurisdiction deserves to be quashed. He further stated that AO while passing the assessment order dated 6.6.2005 has stated that notice u/s. 271(1)(c) for the additions have been issued separately, without recording the satisfaction for initiation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s below. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. We find that the AO while passing the assessment order dated 6.6.2005 has stated that notice u/s. 271(1)(c) for the additions have been issued separately, without recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. We further find that in the penalty order dated 6.2.2007 the AO mentioned that "subsequently a show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued dated 29.11.2006 fixing date of hearing 14.12.2006, but assessee failed to make the compliance the said notice. It is therefore presumed that assessee has nothing to say in this regard. In my opinion it is fit case for imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the absence of a clear finding as to the concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars, the initiation of penalty proceedings will be without jurisdiction. In our opinion, the law is correctly laid down in the CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprise Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 and we are in respectful agreement with the same. This reference is answered accordingly." - CIT vs. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (2007) 165 Taxman 240 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) wherein it has been held that there can be no doubt from a reading of Section 271(1)(c) that the AO has to be satisfied that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of his income or furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
