9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned both the charges or specific limb was pointed out but after perusal of the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 31.12.2010 and the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 07.03.2014, we observe that the penalty was initiated for both the charges as well as imposed on both the charges which is not permissible under the Act as both these limbs are mutually exclusive. Under these circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) as the same is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Piedade Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1458 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Shri Samson Perinchery vs. CIT [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the assessee filed a revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings declaring an additional income by stating that during the course of search, some list of entries recorded on backside of the page No.3 there appeared an entry of ₹ 3,60,000/- which could not be explained and therefore same is being offered as an additional income amounting to ₹ 4,00,000/-. The assessee submitted that in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act such additional income was not declared by mistake and now being rectified by filing revised computation of income. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act dated 31.12.2010 assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is not before us so we are not able to comment on whether the assessee has mentioned both the charges or specific limb was pointed out but after perusal of the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act dated 31.12.2010 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 07.03.2014, we observe that the penalty was initiated for both the charges as well as imposed on both the charges which is not permissible under the Act as both these limbs are mutually exclusive. Under these circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the same is in viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
