TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this is not so and thus the AO himself was not clear as to which limb penalty was to be imposed. The case of the assessee also gets support from the decision of Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that the AO has to specify the charge on which penalty is being imposed failing which the penalty order cannot be sustained. In the instant case also the AO initiated penalty on one limb but imposed penalty on the other which is wrong and therefore order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the said decision and we, respectfully following the same, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified and the same may be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT (A), further, failed to appreciate that the income declared in the revised computation has been accepted by the Ld.A.O. while passing the assessment order. Thus, the levy of penalty of ₹ 20,50,500/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis suo moto declared income is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act pm account of addition made under Income From Other Sources amounting to ₹ 1,03,685/- without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the levy of penalty is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 3. The issue raised in ground No. 1 is a legal issue c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be levied. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty was finally imposed for concealment of income by the assessee. The learned A.R. contended that the order passed by AO deserved to be quashed on this ground only and in defence of his argument the learned A.R. relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA Nos. 4625 to 4630/Mum/2013, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 05.01.2017. In view of the above facts the learned A.R. submitted that the penalty order be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned A.R. defending the order of the Authorities below submitted that the penalty proceedings were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g which the penalty order cannot be sustained. The said order of the Tribunal stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 05.01.2017. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is extracted for ready reference: - 3 The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent-Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing penalty is for concealment of income. The impugned order holds that the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Therefore, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Marketing P. Ltd., reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. 5 The grievance of the Revenue before us is that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra). 8 In view of the above, the question as framed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 8. The facts of the case of the assessee are squarely covered by the above decision. In the instant case also the AO initiated penalty on one limb but imposed penalty on the other which is wrong and therefore order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as stated hereinabove we are of the view that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the said decision and we, respectfully following the same , set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
