9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT] has held, “Concealment of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars” carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. Expression “concealment of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” cannot be used interchangeably In the instant case, we are of considered opinion that there was ambiguity and vagueness in the mind of Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction with respect to charge u/s. 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty. Though at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer stick to only one charge i.e. concealment of income. The Assessing Officer has to be specific and categoric in mentioning the charge u/s. 271(1)(c) at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the assessee filed return of income on 28-04-2011 declaring long term capital loss of ₹ 37,62,257/- and agriculture income of ₹ 60,000/-. During assessment proceedings, the assessee while explaining the source of payment of ₹ 26,00,000/- for purchase of flats/shops revealed that the assessee utilized sale consideration received from sale of three parcels of land comprising in : A. City Survey No. 920, Final Plot No. 305, Bhamburdi, Shivajinagar, Pune Out of 11 Acres 13 Gunthe, assessee s share is 1 Acre 13 Gunthe (5300 sq. mtrs.). B. City Survey No. 921, Final Plot No. 304, Bhamburdi, Shivajinagar, Pune Out of 1,64,000 Sq. mtrs. - assessee s share is 1 Hectar 11 Gunthe (11,100 sq. mtrs.). C. City Survey No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 271(1)(c) qua the said addition. 3.2 That penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13-03-2015 levying penalty of ₹ 19,21,586/- on the addition of ₹ 85,78,512/-. 3.3 Aggrieved against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), inter alia challenging levy of penalty on the ground of ambiguity in recoding of satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the contentions of assessee and confirmed levy of penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Shri Sanjay Ghai representing the Department submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. I, therefore, levy minimum penalty of ₹ 19,21,586/- as against maximum leviable at ₹ 57,64,758/-, U/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. The Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has invoked both the charges of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 292 ITR 11 has held, Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxmn 156, has held that 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. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. 9. In the instant case, we are of considered opinion that there was ambiguity and vaguenes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
