9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. We find that this aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Snita Transport P. Ld. Vs. ACIT [2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] as observed that for the purpose of issuing show cause, the Id.AO can use expression and/or in between whether explanation of the assessee is being sought for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, while passing the final order, the AO has to specify his conclusion whether he visited the assessee with penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case as AO has conclusively held in the penalty order that penalty is be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by CIT(A)-2 Vadodara be directed to be deleted being void. 2. There being no concealment of particulars of income, the penalty order confirmed by Ld. CIT(a)-2, Vadodara u/s 271(1)(c) is unjust and unlawful and considering facts of the case, the penalty of ₹ 5,58,360/- be deleted now. 3. The brief fact is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed on 24th Feb, 2014 and total income was assessed at ₹ 14,62,510/- as against the returned income of ₹ 3,77,040/-. In the assessment, addition of ₹ 10,85,472/- on account of commission income and interest income were made which was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT has also sustained the order of ld. CIT(A). During the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r what was default committed by the assessee. The ld. counsel has also submitted that assessee was a salaried employee, however, he has disclosed the commission income in the revised return of income filed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the assessing officer. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has vehemently contended that assessee has not disclosed the commission in the original return of income filed and the assessing officer has obtained the information from Form No. 26A that assessee has not offered any tax on the commission income, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly sustained the penalty levied by the assessing officer. 7. We have heard the rival cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the same was added to the total income of the assessee. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has not made any compliance before the assessing officer in spite of issuing of numbers of notices and letters as cited above in this order. We have also gone through the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act and it is noticed that assessing officer has categorically concluded that it is case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which attract the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. After considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT(A) of the ld. CIT(A) and the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sunita Transport, we do not find any merit in the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Thus insofar as final order of penalty was concerned, the Assessing Officer was clear and penalty was imposed for concealing particulars of income. In light of this, we may peruse the decision of this Court in case of Manu Engineering Works (supra). In the said decision, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that language of and/or may be proper in issuing a notice for penalty, but it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to come to a positive finding as to whether there was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
