9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. Therefore, it is not a case where the penalty has been initiated for a particular charge and thereafter, penalty has been finally levied on a different charge. The assessee was made aware of both the charges at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and while finally levying the penalty, the AO has given a specific finding that it is a case of concealment of particulars of income. Even where it is held that the charge is uncertain at the initiation stage, the same has been made definite while passing the penalty order, therefore, it is not a case of lack of opportunity to the assessee as well as lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing officer. It is not a case of the assessee that the charge of concealment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice. However, the Assessing Officer ignored the submission and levied the penalty on charge of concealment of particulars of income and the relevant findings of the AO reads as under:- In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the light of above discussion, I hold the assessee is defaulter for concealing particulars of his income and find her to be a fit case for imposition of penalty as provided for in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. It was further submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), reference was drawn to the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shweta Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of penalty proceedings and submitted reply accordingly during the penalty proceedings. Therefore, even assuming there was a defect in the penalty notice, it did not result in denial of natural justice to the assessee and in support, reliance was placed on the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in case of M/s Sundram Finance Limited dated 23.04.2018. It was further submitted that the provision of section 5A to section 271(1)(c) are squarely applicable in the instant case and notwithstanding the fact that the income of ₹ 4,50,000/- is declared by the assessee in the return of income filed on 03.12.2013, since such return has been filed after the date of search, i.e. 13.08.2013, there is deemed concealment of income ₹ 4,50,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing officer. It is not a case of the assessee that the charge of concealment of particulars of income is not attracted in the facts of the present case. The AO has invoked the provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the contention of the assessee of suo motu filing the revised return of income for the reason that such return has been filed, even though the disclosing unexplained investment in jewellery found during the course of search, subsequent to the date of search. In case of B.D Mundra Sons (supra) relied upon by the ld AR, we find that in that case, though the Assessing officer has not initiated the penalty on a specific charge, however, even while le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
