9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t') for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 7,49,290/- on 26.07.2014 which was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.09.2016 determining total income at Rs. 7,49,380/- after making addition to the tune of Rs. 19,79,419/- on account of long-term capital loss. In fact, during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee was asked to furnish the details of long-term capital loss of Rs. 42,10,057/-. However, the long-term capital loss was allowed to the tune of Rs. 22,30,368/- only for the relevant assessment year under review since there was a error in computing long-term capital loss. It is the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ague as well. Since the AO has not specified the alleged guilt committed by assessee by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income which is nothing but non-application of mind. In this aspect, Learned AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd-vs-ACIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 where it was held that while imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO should apply his mind and make it clear as to whether he has proceeded and finalized on the basis that the tax payer has concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, which according to the Learned AR, has not been followed in the instant case by the Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed 7,49,380 2. Concealed Income 19,79,419 3. Assessed Income 7,49,380 4. Tax on Returned Income [as per (1) above] 82,254 5. Tax on Assessed Income [as per (3) above] 82,254 6. Notional Tax effect on disallowance of excess long term capital loss claimed of Rs. 19,79,419/-. (Tax 20% Rs. 19,79,419/-) = Rs. 3,95,884 + 3% EC Rs. 11,877/-= 4,07,761/- 4,07,761 7. Minimum Penalty leviable : 100% of the tax evaded / sought to be evaded 4,07,761 8. Maximum penalty leviable : 300% of the tax evade / sought to be evaded 12,23,283" 5. In a nut shell, it appears from the penalty order that the Learned AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied. It was a case in which in final conclusion the authority had recorded that "I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." It was in this respect the Bench observed that "Now the language of "and/or" may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasicriminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
