Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1195 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s. 271(l)(c) - disallowance representing of interest expenditure considered as attributable on the outstanding balance due from Chitralekha Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd., in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) - difference in grounds on penalty initiated and finally imposed - HELD THAT:- Although the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has finally been levied for concealment of income. Even, in the show-cause notice, AO has failed to mention the specific charge against the assessee. These two expressions i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income, as per judicial pronouncements of higher judicial authorities, carry different connotations and non-framing of specific charge against the assessee vitiates the penalty proceedings. See Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]- wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) carry different meanings/connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice. - decided in favour of assessee.
|