9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) concerning AY 2007-08. 2. The ground of appeal raised by assessee read hereunder: "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in laws and facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 13,50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the ld. AO should be directed to delete the said penalty of Rs. 13,50,000/-." 3. Briefly stated, the assessee company earlier named KGMS Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of dealing stock market and purchase and sale of shares. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs. 24,60,420/-. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act wherein total income was determined at Rs. 69,69,045/-. The AO inter alia made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement pursuant to Section 131 of the Act. The unverified statement of Rupang Shah has been given undue primacy which was given only to absolve him at the cost of assessee. In this background, it is contended that the penalty imposed on share capital money received through banking channel is not justified at all. 6. It was secondly contended that the AO has initiated penalty proceedings under s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act using the expression 'furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income'. It was thus contended that apparently, the AO himself has not made any definite satisfaction towards the nature of charge leveled against the assessee required under s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271(1B) of the Act. It is contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e initiated and thus suffers from vice of ambiguity. The show cause notice dated 10.01.2017 issued by the AO to the assessee is also completely silent about the nature of charge against the assessee. It is a mandate of law that satisfaction for the initiation of penalty proceedings should be arrived at during the course of any proceedings which could possibly be assessment, re-assessment or rectification proceedings but not during the penalty proceedings. The nature of charge proposed against the assessee is neither discernable from the assessment order nor form the penalty notice. The condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271(1B) of the Act is thus not satisfied in the instant case. Having regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
