9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the notice dated 26.12.2016, issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act, the copy of which is placed at page 2 of the paper book, the inapplicable portion or limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off. It is a settled law that the two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Various High Courts have held that Assessing Officer must indicate in the notice for which of the two limbs he proposes to impose the penalty and for this the notice has to be appropriately marked. If in a printed format of the notice the inapplicable portion is not struck off thus not indicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of unexplained cash deposits, Assessing Officer vide penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.06.2017 levied penalty of ₹ 5,10,861 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act . 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal ( Appeal No. 10070/17-18 ) before the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), assessee is now in appeal before us and raised the following grounds: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) erred in upholding penalty of ₹ 5,10,861 levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act. 6. The Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, modify, delete and/or change all or any of the grounds on/or before the date of hearing. 5. Before us, at the outset, at the time of hearing, learned AR submitted that though assessee has raised various grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹ 20,20,000 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. On the aforesaid addition, he levied penalty under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be seen together not in isolation. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to the upholding of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals). The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions of unexplained cash deposits made by him. As per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), if the Assessing Officer or the learned Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct such pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the perusal of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer reveals that in the Assessment Order, no specific finding has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further in the notice dated 26.12.2016, issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act, the copy of which is placed at page 2 of the paper book, the inapplicable portion or limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off. It is a settled law that the two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Various High Courts have held that Assessing Officer must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar.), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 10. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material to demonstrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
