9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 pertaining to assessment year 2000-01. 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee s appeal read as under:- 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to ₹ 10,41,586/-. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that, there was neither furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income nor could it be validly held that there was any concealment of income on the facts of the case, neither there was any satisfaction by learned assessing officer regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income and as such, the penalty so levied is unsustainable in law and is liable to be deleted as such. 2.1 That further the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, thus, reliance placed solely on. the order of assessment is wholly misconceived and misplaced. in law and as such the penalty order is liable to be quashed as such. 3. That the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso perused the Notice dated 28.2.2006 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him. For the sake of convenience, some of the contents of the penalty Notice dated 28.2.2006 are reproduced as under:- ..it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated .. * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ... 6.1 After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 28.2.2006, I am of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. I am of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 271(1) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as well as in the penalty order dated 30.9.2013 AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) CIT Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of ₹ 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of ₹ 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected. 8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the AO has passed the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
