9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty order dated 20.03.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mentions that the assessee is liable to be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but does not specify whether the penalty is being imposed for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars are different. The AO, while issuing notice, has to come to the conclusion as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or whether it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Mere filling up of the standard proforma wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 7,39,037/- was made because on 25.06.2004 the premises of the assessee and its transporters had been searched by the DGCEI, Delhi and a demand of Excise Duty of ₹ 2,20,39,725/- had been created towards evasion of Excise Duty. The assessee had approached the Hon ble Settlement Commission of Custom and Central Excise and the Settlement Commission, vide its order dated 28.08.2008, had reduced the demand to ₹ 47,67,175/-. This amount pertained to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06. The amount pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 i.e. the year under consideration was ₹ 27,55,000/-. Since the rate of Excise Duty in the year was 63% of the turnover, the supressed turnover of the assessee was determined at ₹ 43,73,000/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice to the above grounds the quantum of penalty imposed is much too high excessive. 7. That the orders of the lower authorities are against law, facts principles of natural justice. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinafter any time whether during the course of hearing of appeal or even earlier. 3. The Ld. Authorised Representative, at the outset, submitted that the notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act did not specify as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was proposed to be imposed for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. It was also submitted that the penalty order also did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) as appearing on page 6 of the paper book shows that notice has been issued in mechanical manner by merely filling up the format of the notice and it is not clear as to whether the penalty is proposed to be imposed for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars as the relevant portions in the notice have been crossed out. The assessment order dated 30.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) / 153A of the Act mentions initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty order dated 20.03.2014 passed u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mentions that the assessee is liable to be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but does not specify whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held : ( 1) Notice u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(l)(c), i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; ( ii)Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law; ( iii) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise principle of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. 5.1 Therefore, on the facts of the present case and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
