9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n additions made alleging 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. Apparently, the basis and foundation for imposition of penalty has been altered by the AO. It is thus ostensible that findings recorded by the Assessing Officer show that penalty has been levied on a different premise and the original satisfaction for imposition of penalty has been altered or modified. Where the original basis of imposition of penalty has been altered in a significant way by the Assessing Officer, the very basis for sustaining the penalty is rendered non-existent. Needless to say, the imposition of penalty is solely dependent upon the 'satisfaction' of the Assessing Officer and non-else. The ground for action by Assessing Officer was allegation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of penalty of Rs. 12,00,659/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Rs. 35,67,018/- made by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed." 3. The Assessee has also raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 35,67,018/- made on the basis of loos paper found during search. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned penalty on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of analysis of data & incriminating document found during the course of search action. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty proceedings were initiated for 'concealment of particulars of income', whereas while passing penalty order, the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y u/s 271(1)(c)'. To conclude, the Assessing Officer levied penalty holding that 'the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and committed default within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961'. On this issue, we straight away find that the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 20.07.2021 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed penalty on additions made alleging 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. Apparently, the basis and foundation for imposition of penalty has been altered by the Assessing Officer. It is thus ostensible that findings recorded by the Assessing Officer show that penalty has been levied on a different premise and the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
