Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 992 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 does not specify the exact reason for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)? - Held that:- The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in [2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME Court ] has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in [1978 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court ] and VIRGO MARKETING [2008 (1) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT] 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. Thus we delete the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
|