9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce President And Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Pankaj Misshra, AR For the Respondent : Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR. ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A), Moradabad, dated 18/02/2016, relating to assessment year 2007-08 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has filed following grounds of appeal:- i. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. ii. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 4,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the assessee to have defaulted and was liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1(A) and (B) and penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- was levied on the assessee. 4. The said levy of penalty was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The issue which is raised before us is whether the penalty levied in the present case for non-recording of satisfaction in the assessment order is justified or not. 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee strongly opposed the levy of penalty for concealment and pointed out that in the absence of proper recording of satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been complied with by the assessee, there was no merit in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appeal No.1154 of 2014 with other Income Tax Appeals Nos.953 of 2014, 1097 of 2014 and 1226 of 2014, judgment dated 05.01.2017, wherein it was held that where initiation of penalty is on one limb and the levy of penalty is on other limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty 9. Applying the said principle as laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra), the requirement of the Act is to initiate penalty proceedings on account of non satisfaction of one limb especially in a case where one addition is sought to be made, for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As referred to by us in the earlier paras and also in this pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? 17. The Hon ble High Court had allowed the claim of assessee where the Assessing Officer had not expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive operation of section 271(1B) of the Act was challenged being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi upholding the retrospective operation of sub-section (1B) held that the issue of descernability of satisfaction was to be arrived at by the Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings before him. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had to be read in consonance with section 271(1B) of the Act. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi held that prima facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the case may deserve the imposition of penalty should be discernible from the order passed during the course of proceedings. Further, referring to the provisions of the Act while initiating penalty proceedings, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
