9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred to as "the act'') for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, whereby and whereunder the penalty to the tune of Rs.3,24,613/- levied by the AO has been confirmed. 2. The short point involved in this case as to whether the penalty is sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for "concealment of income" or furnishing of "inaccurate particulars of income". 3. Brief facts leading to this case is this that the Assessment Order was finalized u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2015 by the Ld.AO whereupon penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated for "concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd deliberately concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of capital gain to the tune of Rs.16,23,063/- thus without specifying the guilt committed by the assessee u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act though mandated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is appearing at page 3 of the penalty order impugned before us. 5. Further that in the order imposing penalty the Ld. ITO in its penaltimate paragraph while dealing with the guilt committed by the assessee clubbed both the limbs being furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income too, the relevant portion whereof is as follows:- "It is undisputed fact that the default was detected during the course of scrutiny Assessment. If the case was not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. Thus insofar as final order of penalty was concerned, the Assessing Officer was clear and penalty was imposed for concealing particulars of income. In light of this, we may peruse the decision of this Court in case of Manu Engineering Works (supra). In the said decision, the Divisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No such definite finding is reflecting from the orders impugned before us. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eye of law. The penalty is, thus, deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. As we have deleted the penalty imposed by the Learned AO & confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) on the technical ground, i.e. no specific charge has been assigned as discussed above, we are inclined to refrain ourselves from adjudicating the grounds of appeal of assessee raised on merits. 7. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 06/12/2019 at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
