9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge the Ao has levied penalty - AO has simply made observation hat the assessee evaded the income details and thereby concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. But the intention of the provision of Section 271(1)(c) has given a mechanism as to on which specific limb penalty has to be levied. If the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars then the penalty proceedings will be separate and the reasoning will be separate to that extent. If the assessee has concealed the particulars of income, the reasoning has to be given by the AO to that extent. If both the limbs has been observed or identified in any particular assessee s case then for both the limbs the AO has to give the reason either in assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 5,92,662/-. The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of assessment, on verification of purchase and sales registers furnished by the assessee for the year under assessment, the assessee made purchases of Tiles from M/s Navkar Sales Corporation in the month of May June 2013 and sold the same to M/s. Crystal Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. during the month of May June 2016. The quantum of above purchases and sales found to be at ₹ 6,48,78,689/- and ₹ 6,47,72,648/- respectively. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific charge mentioned in the assessment order as well as in the notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with 274 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that without giving specific charge, imposition of penalty is not valid. On merit, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition was made purely on estimate basis and the objection of the CIT(A) that the assessee has offered profit at 1.1% in his return of income and the difference of 0.65% was treated as income by the Assessing Officer does not amount to either furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or that of concealing of income. Thus, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) does not apply in the present case. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order and the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars then the penalty proceedings will be separate and the reasoning will be separate to that extent. If the assessee has concealed the particulars of income, the reasoning has to be given by the Assessing Officer to that extent. If both the limbs has been observed or identified in any particular assessee s case then for both the limbs the Assessing Officer has to give the reason either in assessment order or in penalty order itself, but that is a lacuna in the present penalty order under challenge. Therefore, on this ground the penalty does not sustain. 8. Now coming to the merits, the Assessing Officer admittedly, in assessment order, in the penalty order and before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
