9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very basis of initiation of penalty proceedings was nonexistent. Interest on TDS - AO in his assessment order had not mentioned a word regarding his satisfaction for proceeding with penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act while passing the impugned penalty order dated 23.03.2018. The assessment order does not mention if penalty proceedings has to be for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As a matter of fact the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act itself was ambiguous as it did not make it clear as to under which limb section of 271(1)(c) of the Act the notice was issued. On the other hand in the penalty order the ld AO has coined her own term concealed income by f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) which are as under:- (i) Provision for LD charges of Rs. 27,99,953/- (ii) Interest on TDS of Rs. 67,797/-. 3. The ld AO while passing the impugned penalty order dated 23.03.2018 observed that the Assessee has concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income and made following disallowances in the penalty order:- "The working of penalty leviable in accordance with provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act is given here-in-below:-(Amount in Rs.) Concealed income where penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) is initiated 62,89,890/- Tax sought to be evaded 20,40,755/- Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% 20,40,755/- Maximum penalty imposable @300% 61,22,265/- Penalty imposed 20,40,755/- 4. The ld CIT(A) had pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate of income, the notice was issued. 8. The ld Sr. DR however, defended the orders of the Ld. Tax authorities below. 9. Giving a thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it comes up that quantum appeal in regard to the addition made by the ld AO on account of provision of liquidated damages stands deleted and once the quantum appeal is allowed no foundation is left for the levy of penalty on that account. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgement of Hon"ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Fortune Technocomps P.Ltd. vide ITA 313/2016 dated 13th May, 2016 where it has held that once the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act itself was ambiguous as it did not make it clear as to under which limb section of 271(1)(c) of the Act the notice was issued. On the other hand in the penalty order the ld AO has coined her own term "concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars." 11. Hon"ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) (HC).while deciding the identical issue held as under :- "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
