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 1399 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - both the limbs of charge are mentioned there i.e. ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein has considered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the legal proposition that comes out and which is binding in nature is that the Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs under which penalty is imposable, has been contravened or indicate that both have been contravened while initiating penalty proceedings. It cannot be that the initiation would be only on one limb i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while imposition of penalty on the other limb i.e. concealment of income. The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which penalty is imposed upon him u/s. 271(1)(c). In the instant case, the charge is vague and therefore, levy of penalty is not warranted. Furthermore, the revised return filed by the assessee is in conformity with section 139(5) of the Act wherein all the particulars of income have been disclosed - direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee - decided in favour of assessee.
|