9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assssee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax sought to be evaded. 5. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to page 13 of the paper book, drew the attention of the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 6th March, 2017 and submitted that the inappropriate words have not been struck off and, therefore, it is not discernible as to under which limb of the provisions the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Referring to the notice u/s. 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) dated 28th March, 2013, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessee. 8. He submitted that the above decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was challenged by the Revenue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue. He submitted that similar view has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA Emerald Meadows and the SLP filed by the Revenue was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT, reported in 282 ITR 642, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that the order of penalty must clearly state whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inappropriate particulars. Order stating penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all particulars are given and the assessee, under bona fide belief and without any mala fide intention has claimed the interest expenditure in his individual hand. Therefore, penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. 8.2. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. Relying on various other decisions, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO dated 28th March, 2013 reads as under:- From the above, it is seen that the AO has not specified under which limb of the provisions of section 271, he has initiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, the second notice issued by the AO dated 6th March, 2017 reads as under:- 11. Even here also, the AO has not specified as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act he has initiated the penalty proceedings. Even the assessment order shows that the AO while recording satisfaction has mentioned as under:- "Satisfaction is hereby recorded that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue, separately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
