TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). Also see NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty on the assessee @200% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to ₹ 4,89,880/- by observing as under :- The assessee has kept changing the explanation, rather he kept on submitting wrong facts/misleading facts both before the AO and the CIT(A), therefore, it is a fit case for imposition of penalty @ 200%. In view of the above I find it reasonable to impose a penalty of ₹ 4,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus there are two different charges in respect of which penalty has to be imposed. The charge of concealing the particulars of income is different from furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. Explanation I is applicable in case of concealment of particulars of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee. My aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 (Gujarat), Hon ble Karnataka High Court has also taken the similar view in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. Since it is not discernible from the order passed by the AO for which specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
