9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O has mentioned both limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the notice. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd. [ 2021 (8) TMI 1285 - SC ORDER] held that where there was no record of satisfaction by A.O in relation to any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), same being sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh [ 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that where asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity and assess the same as income from business and profession to the amount of Rs.7,02,96,23,900/-. The A.O further noticed that assessee has claimed loss from F O to the amount of Rs.7,38,18,591/- which was set off from the income derived from short term capital gain of Rs.10,48,18,686/-. The A.O noticed that out of the F O loss claimed of Rs.7,38,18,591/-, and amount of Rs.7,00,98,539/- was shown as sundry creditors at the end of the year in the name of M/s N.K.B Securities. The assessee was asked to furnish the global report of F O trade and the contracts notes of F O trade entered by it. On analysis of the detail the AO observed that assessee had incurred F O loss of Rs.7,00,98,539/- traded through N.K.B. securities for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings are vitiated. The ld. Counsel has also submitted the copy of the notice issued u/s 13.03.2013. On the other hand the ld. Departmental Representative has placed reliance on the order of lower authorities. 5. Heard both the side and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated at para 2 of this order, the A.O has levied penalty of Rs.1,13,97,970/- vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.09.2015. Regarding the technical ground of appeal of the assessee that there was no clear indication about the concealment of the particulars of income, nor there was clear indication for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, we have perused the copy of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), same being sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT 125 taxmann.com 253, held that where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) a mere defect in notice, not striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. The relevant part of the decision of Bombay High Court is reproduced as under: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
