9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, 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 other 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. - decided in favour of assessee. - I .T.A. No.6849/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2019 - Shri Mahavir Singh, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Appellant : Ms. Aarti Vissanji-Ld.AR For the Respondent : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR ORDER PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1.1 Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as AY ] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai, [in short referred to as CIT(A) ], Appeal No. CIT(A)-28/IT-222/ACIT -17(1)/2013-14 dated 13/06/2017 by raising following ground of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same first. 2.1 Facts leading to the imposition of the impugned penalty are that the assessee being resident firm engaged in the business of publishing magazines was assessed u/s 143(3) on 11/03/2013 wherein the assessee was saddled with interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for ₹ 23.97 Lacs. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee in the quantum assessment order and the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty of ₹ 7.40 Lacs vide order dated 12/09/2013. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same on legal grounds as well as on merits, however, without any success before first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 13/06/2017 wherein the penalty got confirmed, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the quantum assessment order, show-cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), submitted that Ld. AO failed to frame a specific charge against the assessee and therefore the penalty proceedings stood vitiated on legal grounds. Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements for these submissions: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of income whereas the penalty has finally been levied for concealment of income. Even, in the show-cause notice, Ld. AO has failed to mention the specific charge against the assessee. These two expressions i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income, as per judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities, carry different connotations and non-framing of specific charge against the assessee vitiates the penalty proceedings. 4.2 Proceeding further, we find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the observation of Hon ble Bombay High Court made in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein it has been held as under: - 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent-Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of income. The impugned order holds that the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the impugned order is between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In the above view, the deletion of the penalty, is unjustified. 6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[2007] 292 ITR 11/161 Taxman 340 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra)] - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/connotations. 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 other 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. 7. Therefore, the issue herein stands concluded in favour of the Respondent- Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
