9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2014 the AO has held it as a fit case for imposition of penalty stating that the assessee has concealed its income as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the assessee has no notice - See CIT vs. Samson Perincherr [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 852/MUM/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-12-2018 - Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Haresh G. Buch, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings and quantum proceedings are independent and penalty cannot be levied merely on making the additions. 6) That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in holding that penalty is leviable on disallowance of legal expenses of ₹ 36,91,125/- because this is not the case of quantum of expenditure but this is the case of claim of expenses not relatable to the purpose of business. 7) That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in holding that penalty is leviable on disallowance of expenditure for increase in its authorized share capital included in deduction u/s 35D amounting to ₹ 4,50,000/- because the said expenditure is liable to be disallowed as per the two judgments in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit it for adjudication. 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel submits that no penalty is leviable in case where inappropriate portion of the notice are not struck off. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2017) 242 Taxman 180 (SC), CIT v. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 953 of 2014) of Bombay High Court and related orders of the Tribunal. The Ld. counsel also submits that no penalty is leviable in a case where penalty is not initiated on specific limb of section 271(1)(c) and inappropriate portion of the notice are not struck off. He relies on the decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn), CIT v. MWP Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 496 (Karn) and related orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ITA No. 953, 1097, 1154 1226 of 2014), the Hon ble Bombay High Court held: Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the order breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the assessee has no notice. We find that in view of the factual scenario delineated above, the ratio laid do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
