Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1810 - AT - Income TaxPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 56(vi) - gift received on marriage anniversary - HELD THAT:- AO has not recorded valid satisfaction in order to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Perusal of assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has merely recorded that “action u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated on this score”. From the entire assessment order it is not discernible as to under which of the limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty is being initiated. Even in the penalty order the Assessing Officer has failed to point out “as to whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of particular of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” by the assessee. It is settled principle of law that in order to initiate the penalty proceedings the Assessing Officer is required to make the assessee aware as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on her part, which is entirely missing in this case. In a case cited as CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that when the assessee has not been specifically charged as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on her part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. Merely making inaccurate claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. When the assessee has categorically claimed that the amount of ₹ 2,12,000/- has been received by her as a gift on her marriage anniversary, which has been disallowed by the AO but subsequently partly accepted by Ld. CIT(A) who has given relief to the extent of ₹ 1,38,000/-, it cannot be said that it is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court cited as Reliance Petro Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Following the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court, we are of the considered view that when the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against her as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on her part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|