9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he imposition of penalty is solely dependent upon the ‘satisfaction’ of the AO [unless initiated by CIT(A)] and non-else. The ground for action by AO was allegation of ‘concealment’. This ground has been substituted by CIT(A) to ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ while confirming the penalty quantified by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.1381 to 1385/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Manish J Shah, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The five captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income; whereas in the order dtd. 06-03-2014 u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is levied on a different ground viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by making incorrect statement that in the assessment order that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 30.12.2011 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed the levy of penalty on a different ground i.e. concealment of particulars of income and has stated that the anomaly of ground of levy of penalty in the order of the Ld AO has been ratified by the impugned appellate order since the order of the Id. A.O. merges with that of the Ld CIT(A). Your appellant submits that the act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rays your Honour to hold so now and direct the ld. A.O. to delete the penalty levied on the impugned addition of ₹ 84,350/-. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case and in law, on merits also the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on addition of ₹ 84,350/- made u/s 69C of the Act in respect of expenditure on purchase and stitching of clothes on the ground of concealment of particulars of income. Appellant submits that even after making huge ad-hoc addition of ₹ 84,350/- on the ground of lower withdrawals, the ld. A.O. should not have rejected appellant's explanation that impugned expenditure of ₹ 84, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon ble ITAT in the quantum proceedings. The AO in his assessment order initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. Subsequently, the AO issued a notice u/s 274 r.ws. 271(1)(c) dated 30.12.2011. Thereafter, the AO confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide order dated 06.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of AO by holding that the assessee has concealed particulars of income. Being aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) assessee is in second appeal before us. The ld AR before us filed a paper book which is running from pages 1-57 and submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings recorded by the CIT(A) show that penalty has been confirmed on a different premise and the original satisfaction for imposition of penalty has been altered or modified by the appellate authority. In such circumstances, where the original basis of imposition of penalty has been altered in a significant way by the first appellate authority, the very basis for sustaining the penalty is rendered nonexistent. Needless to say, the imposition of penalty is solely dependent upon the 'satisfaction' of the AO [unless initiated by CIT(A)] and nonelse. The ground for action by AO was allegation of 'concealment'. This ground has been substituted by CIT(A) to 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' while confirming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
