9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve two appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 28th June, 2018 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Since identical grounds have been taken by the respective assessees in these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. First we take up ITA No.5501/Del/2018. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 7th February, 2016 declaring total taxable income of ₹ 5,97,690/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessee appeared from time to time and, thereafter, the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt further stated that there were no mala fide intentions. The submission of the appellant is a part of statement of facts. The facts of the case along with material on record have been gone through. It is noted that the appellant has derived income from trading in future options which has not been disclosed in the return of income. The appellant is a professional doctor and ignorance of law cannot be ground for justification/explanation for not showing the above income in the return. The case of the appellant is covered by Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. It is noted that the appellant has concealed the particulars of income of this account. There is no reasonable cause in the case of the appellant as provided u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt craves leave to add, alter, modify any of the grounds at the time of hearing or before the hearing. 5. The ld. counsel, at the outset, filed a copy of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act dated 29.11.2017. Referring to the same, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words from the said notice i.e., he has not specified under which limb of the provisions i.e., whether for concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income the penalty has been levied. Referring to various decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton Mills reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar), he submitted that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded. It is true that mere absence of the words I am satisfied may not be fatal but such a satisfaction must be spelt out from the order of the Assessing Authority as to the concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the absence of a clear finding as to the concealment of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars, the initiation of penalty proceedings will be without jurisdiction. In our opinion, the law is correctly laid down in Ram Commercial Enterprises (supra) and we are in respectful agreement with the same. The reference is answered accordingly. 6. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is not justified. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. I find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Yum ! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO vide ITA Nos. 894, 895, 896/Del/2013, order dated 28th June, 2017, for assessment years 2006-07, 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively (to which I am a party), the Tribunal has cancelled the penalty so levied by observing as under:- 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities along with the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the assessment order dated 11.10.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and found that AO while completing the assessment has not recorded the satisfaction and has not initiated the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 1145 Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO 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 Decided in favour of assessee. 10.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. 10. Since the facts of the impugned appeal are identical to the facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
