9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai [in short 'CIT(A)'] and arises out of the levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act even when the penalty was initiated in the assessment order for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' and levied in the penalty order for 'wilful concealment. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act even when the penalty notice under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. It is stated by him that in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for the impugned assessment year, the inappropriate words and paragraphs have not been deleted as is evident from the fact that both " concealed the particulars of your income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" appear together. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in CIT v. Samson Perinchery (2017) 88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder), whereas in the penalty order dated 30.09.2013, he concluded with levy of penalty for concealment of income. In CIT vs. Samson Perincherry (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 proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
