9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year under consideration at an income of Rs. 16,59,800/- by making addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources in place of the returned income of Rs. 15,19,800/-. 4. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 43,260/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 5. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee filed before us copy of notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.02.2018, copy of which is placed on record and pointed out there from that in the said notice, the Assessing Officer has stated as under: "Where in the course of proceedings befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. Co vs CIT [116 taxman 842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del), 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 10. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 27.02.2018 levied penalty of Rs. 43,260/-. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) 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. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX - VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'bleHigh Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
