9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings/connotations and therefore, the satisfaction of the AO with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. The order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the assessee has no notice. Therefore, where the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the order imposing penalty for concealment of income was not valid - we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c). - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scrutiny (CASS) to examine the cash deposits and the large commodity exchange transactions. The Ld. AO observed that as per AIR information, the assessee has carried out large scale commodity transactions in MCX and assessee had not declared any income from the said transactions. Accordingly, the Ld. AR during the course of assessment proceedings sought details of the same from the assessee. The assessee replied during the course of assessment proceedings by stating that the commodity transaction was undertaken through broker M/s. Shreya Commodities and the major commodities in which trades have been undertaken were silver, gold and crude. The entire details of the same were enclosed along with reply letter dated 26/03/2015 by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. AO also observed that assessee had earned gross profit of ₹ 14,56,511/- and net profit of ₹ 6,82,211/- from commodity transaction for A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. AO ultimately initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in the quantum assessment order. The Ld. AO observed that since assessee had earned income from commodity exchange transactions amounting to ₹ 6,82,211/- which was not disclosed by her in the return of income, proceeded to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly levied penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urate particulars of income, the order imposing penalty for concealment of income was not valid. While rendering this judgment, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT reported in 292 ITR 11. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the sum of ₹ 1,20,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13. 5. In the result, appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for both concealment income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This is a classic case wherein penalty has been initiated under one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately levied for another limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom) had held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings/connotations and therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
