Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 679 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars when the original amount declared was ₹ 25,07,933/- to which an additional of ₹ 42,08,079/- was made by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Pai & Dilip Shroff [2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME Court] it is no longer good law? - Held that:- The use of phrases like (a) penalty proceedings are being initiated separately, and (b) penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word "direction" as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. A direction by a statutory authority is in the nature of an order requiring positive compliance. When it is left to the option and discretion of the Income-tax Officer whether or not take action, it cannot be described as a direction. It is settled law that in the absence of the existence of these conditions in the assessment order penalty proceedings could not be proceeded with. The proceedings which are initiated contrary to the said legal position are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the appellate Authority was justified in setting aside the order imposing penalty. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
|