Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 894 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition of LTCG - assessee had adopted indexed cost of acquisition of land as on 01-04-1981 without any basis and had declared Long Term Capital Loss -deliberate Act on the part of assessee to suppress the Long Term Capital Gains and has thereby caused losses to the Revenue - Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has invoked both the charges of section 271(1)(c) - at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer stick to only one charge i.e. concealment of income - HELD THAT:- The Hon”ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT] has held, “Concealment of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars” carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. Expression “concealment of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” cannot be used interchangeably In the instant case, we are of considered opinion that there was ambiguity and vagueness in the mind of Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction with respect to charge u/s. 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty. Though at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer stick to only one charge i.e. concealment of income. The Assessing Officer has to be specific and categoric in mentioning the charge u/s. 271(1)(c) at the time of recording satisfaction as well as at the time of levy of penalty. Where penalty provisions have been invoked in indistinct manner, penalty proceedings would fail the test of legal requirements. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.
|