Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1947 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271AAA - deduction u/s.80IA(4) disallowed - additional income in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A - non recording of satisfaction - HELD THAT:- On satisfaction issue, we find the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA for the default of “concealing the particulars of income” whereas the penalty was actually levied for “undisclosed income detected by the Revenue by way of action u/s.132 of the Act”. This manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existence of ambiguity in the mind of the AO and the resultant penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. AO is under obligation to specify the correct default at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty uniformly. For this proposition, we rely on the binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as well as CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory , [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] As perused the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vikas Bapurao Takawane [2017 (7) TMI 1139 - ITAT PUNE] In this case, we find the Tribunal had an occasion to deal with an identical issue as held there was ambiguity and vagueness in the mind of Assessing Officer with regard to the charge and the provisions under which penalty is to be levied. As a result, the notice levying penalty is also ambiguous and hence bad in law. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order deleting penalty u/s.271AAA - Decided in favour of assessee.
|