Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1029 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - maximum penalty @ 300% - Defective notice - non specification of any specific limb or clause whether penalty initiated for Concealment of income or for providing inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT:- While passing the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act, the assessing officer has categorically stated that this being second default of concealment of particulars of same type of income therefore he was satisfied to impose maximum penalty @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Regarding contention of the assessee that assessing officer has failed to specify charge whether penalty is being imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. We find that this aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Snita Transport P. Ld. Vs. ACIT [2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] as observed that for the purpose of issuing show cause, the Id.AO can use expression "and/or" in between whether explanation of the assessee is being sought for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, while passing the final order, the AO has to specify his conclusion whether he visited the assessee with penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case as AO has conclusively held in the penalty order that penalty is being imposed for concealment of particular of same type of income. On merit, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). However, considering the totality of the facts that assessee was working as plant operator, we consider it will be justified to restrict the impugned penalty at 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The assessing officer is directed to levy penalty as directed above, therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
|