9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11. 2. The captioned appeal of the assessee seeks to assail the imposition of penalty of Rs. 77,705/- imposed by the AO under s.271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee at the outset referred to the assessment order and submitted that the satisfaction was formed by the AO for concealment of particulars of income while passing the assessment order under s.143(3) of the Act. However, while imposing the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has charged the assessee with default in the form of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 4,77,102/-. The learned AR thus contended that in the absence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice seeking pertinent details including bank statement which could have easily unearthed the capital gains not offered thus far. However, this by itself will not, in our view, propel a reasonable person to draw an inflexible inference that omission was deliberate. The totality of circumstances is required to be gauged. The intention requires to be seen from the conduct of the assessee. The assessee herein is a technical person and may not necessarily know the complicated tax laws. A perusal of land sale agreement suggests that the land was in the nature of agricultural land the gain on sale of which, under the popular belief, is not taxable. However, on objective consideration, it was found that such agricultural land was also required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj). Thus, in totality, penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." 6. In parity with the view taken as quoted above, we find force in the plea of the assessee that where the penalty has been imposed on a ground different from the ground for which the penalty was originally initiated, the imposition of penalty is vitiated in law. It is apparent that the satisfaction of the AO in the penalty proceedings is not consistent with that of the satisfaction formed in the course of quantum assessment. Therefore, in parity with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, the penalty imposed is liable to be struck do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
