9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf is not valid, it does not provide any cause of action as required u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to levy the penalty on the assessee. Moreover when AO has not recorded valid satisfaction required u/s 271(1)(c) notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to initiate the penalty proceeding is not specified one so as to make out if the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Ratio of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because when at the time of initiating the penalty proceedings AO was not clear enough as to whether penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealment of pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 6,19,080/- on the alleged ground of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income even though the fact of share application money is apparent from the face of financial statements and as such there is no case of any penalty in terms of provisions of section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. (ii) That even on merits, the addition u/s 68 being on technical grounds, there is no case of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 3(i) That merely on the basis of addition in the assessment order, there cannot be any presumption about concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars when all the relevant facts were part of record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to turn up to pursue the present appeal despite notice and consequently bench proceeded to decide the appeal with the assistance of Ld. DR for the revenue ex parte on merit. 5. Undisputedly addition made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 16,00,000/- and ₹ 8000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained expenditure respectively has been confirmed by CIT(A). It is also not in dispute that assessee company is a sick company and proceedings on its behalf are not being attended too. It is also not in dispute that after remand of the case by the Tribunal to AO none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer who has framed the assessment on account of non-furnishing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271(1)(c) i.e. as to whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty proceedings has been initiated. Even perusal of the penalty order goes to show that the penalty has been levied merely on the basis of addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and independent case has not been made out by the AO to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 9. For ready perusal para 5 of the assessment order containing satisfaction of then AO to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is extracted as under :- 5. In view of the above, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, therefore, there was no substantial question of law arising for determination - Whether since there was no merit in SLP filed by revenue, same was liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate : ₹ 16,08,000/- Particulars were furnished : ₹ 6,19,080/- Tax sought to be evaded : ₹ 6,19,080/- Minimum Penalty (100% of the tax Sought to have evaded) Maximum Penalty (300% of the tax Sought to have evaded) : ₹ 6,19,080/- 14. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that AO has miserably failed to record valid satisfaction so as to ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
