9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s requested the Assessing Officer to treat the incurred cash deposit as his total sales receipts of trading activities of chalk lumps and offered profit at 8% of 9% of total turnover. Once the assessee has offered the same cash deposits, the AO cannot observe that the same is inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. See SSA s Emarld Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] As the assessee at no point of time has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any particulars of income. Hence, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in imposing the penalty. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 110 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case no penalty ought to have been levied. The same deserves cancellation. 3. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was finalized on 10/01/2014 determining total income of Rs.6,87,380/- as against return income of Rs.2,35,250/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, thereby giving notice dated 10/01/2014. After taking detailed submissions from the assessee on record, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.65,869/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following: 1. 106 ITR6 72(All) Mussadilal Singh 2. 150 ITR 714 (P H) - Metal Products of India 3. 258 ITR 85 (P H) - Harigopal Singh 4. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.) - Devendas Eprumal Co. 5. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) - Krushi Tire Rt. Rubber Ind. 2.1.1 It may also be submitted that at Para 3.2 page no. 3 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that from above facts, it is clear that the assessee has shown inaccurate particulars and concealment of his income. This default of the assessee attracts a penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. I, therefore, proposed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 2.1.2 Thus no specific charge is mention as to whether it is concealm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut issuing proper notice penalty cannot be levied. Kindly delete the penalty levied. 3.5 It is settled law that when charges are not specified as to whether it is levied for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, the levy of penalty is illegal bad in law and not sustainable in the eye of law. The Hon. ITAT Rajkot, Ahmedabad, Kolkata, Delhi, Bombay and others has also been kind enough to delete penalty levied when ii is not specifically for a particular charge. 4. Assessee also rely on the decision of Hon. ITAT Rajkot in the case of Sureshbhai Makanshi Gadesha ITA No.203 204/Rjt/2013, it was held that penalty proceeding initiated for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. We respectfully follow the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emarld Meadows (CC No.11485/2016) order dated 05/08/2016 which confirmed the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.). As regards addition on merit is concerned, the assessee at no point of time has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any particulars of income. Hence, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in imposing the penalty. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/09/2022 - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
