9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee submitted that in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.08.2014, the AO has observed as under :- "Therefore, it is inferred that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars/concealed income worth Rs. 4,32,085/- which remain unexplained and thereby liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act." He further submitted that while levying the penalty finally in the order, the Assessing Officer observed as under :- "In view of the above, I deem it proper to impose a penalty u/s.271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the I.T.Act, 1961." 4. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was not clear as to whether he was levying penalty on the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
