Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 790 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - recording of satisfaction - AO was not clear at all as to the fact whether penalty was being levied on the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - Held that:- It is settled law that penalty cannot be levied for twin charges. Penalty cannot be levied for two mutually exclusive situations. The default for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are two mutually exclusive situations. The position of law in this is well settled and reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engg Co. vs. CIT [2006 (1) TMI 71 - GUJARAT High Court], CIT vs. Manu Engg. Works [1978 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court] and CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji [1971 (9) TMI 33 - GUJARAT High Court]. This view has been again reiterated also by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT). Thus viewed from any angle we find that levy of penalty in this case is not justified and the impugned penalty order is illegal. Therefore, we have no other option but to delete the same. Thus, the penalty is hereby directed to deleted. Since, penalty is deleted on jurisdictional ground, we are not deciding other issues raised by assessee. As a result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
|