9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings and in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. In the facts of the said case, the Tribunal had deleted penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that initiation of penalty proceedings by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty was for concealment of income. As in the present case where no charge is mentioned in assessment order, then also for non recording of proper satisfaction, the initiation of penalty proceedings is not as per law and the penalty order passed in such cases thus, cannot be upheld. Where, in some cases, penalty has been levied for non fulfillment of both limbs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 917/PUN/2018, 961/PUN/2018, 1042/PUN/2018 TO 1045/PUN/2018, 1080/PUN/2018, 1218/PUN/2018, 1266/PUN/2018, 1220/PUN/2018 To 1223/PUN/2018, 1378/PUN/2018, 1841/PUN/2018, 1466/PUN/2018 To 1469/PUN/2018, 1482/PUN/2018 TO 1484/PUN/2018, 1715/PUN/2018, 523/PUN/2019, 517/PUN/2019, 394/PUN/2019, 511/PUN/2019, 1591/PUN/2018, 1662/PUN/2018, 1672/PUN/2018, 1842/PUN/2018, 1910/PUN/2018, 1381/PUN/2018, 1799/PUN/2018, 334/PUN/2019, 335/PUN/2019, 344/PUN/2019, 343/PUN/2019, 1919/PUN/2018, 192/PUN/2019 Mr. Uttam Bhagwanrao Patil, Nawander Company, Latur, M/s. Hotel Damini, Dr. M.S. Hiremath, Shri Bhatabhai Shankar Patel, Jeetu Bhagchand Khemani, Swapnil Popatlal Shah, Rakesh Lalchand Shah, Lalchand Chhotalal Shah, Thouwfeeq Fish Meal Oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hesh Bhagwat Chaudhari, M/s. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This bunch of appeals filed by different assessee and Revenue are against respective orders of CIT(A) relating to different assessment years against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. In this bunch of appeals filed / against different assessee, common thread is the issue raised against levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Majorly the appeals are filed by assessee as they are aggrieved by the aforesaid levy of penalty and in some cases, appeals are also filed by Revenue against order of CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the cases, we note that the Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has initiated penalty proceedings for the default of both i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and / or concealment of income. In some of the cases, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that penalty proceedings need to be initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in view of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It may be pointed out herein itself that Explanation (1) deals with concealment of income. In some of the cases, though the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for one of the limbs i.e. either for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the income but while levying penalty, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of Assessing Officer / CIT(A) and find justification in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We find that we have already adjudicated this issue in number of cases in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra), wherein it was held that where there is no proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. In the facts of the said case, the Tribunal had deleted penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that initiation of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70, 69 of 2018 6 of 2019, judgment dated 18.06.2019 applying the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra) have also similarly held. 10. Applying the said principle laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra), it transpires that in cases of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs of said section are attracted or has been contravened and for initiating penalty proceedings give show cause accordingly. It cannot be the case of Revenue that initiation would be on one limb i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposition of penalty on the other limb i.e. concealment of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
