9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reflective of non- application of mind by the AO, the penalty imposed U/s 271(1)(c) is deleted. - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23.12.2010 for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has challenged the said addition before the ld. CIT(A) and the same has been confirmed hence, in the quantum proceedings, the matter has attained finality. Thereafter the AO passed the penalty order dated 28.03.2013 where penalty on addition so sustained has been imposed for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR has submitted that the AO in the body of the assessment order has mentioned that penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately as assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further, in the notice issued U/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exact charge against the assessee. It is a settled position in law that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is invited when the conditions specified therein are satisfied and further, the two expressions "concealing the particulars of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" denote different connotations. It is therefore imperative that the assessee be made aware as to which of the two charges, he is required to submit his defence and supportive arguments. In the instant case, as we have noted above, the notice talks about both the charges and it doesn't convey to the assessee as to which charge he has to respond. The notice thus demonstrate non- application of mind on the part of the AO. Further, we refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. It was also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718]." 17. We find that similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) which has been followed in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
