Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 355 - ITAT MUMBAILevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 - search and seizure action under section 132 - assessee company offered undisclosed income in the Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to AY 201213 and paid the taxes accordingly - HELD THAT:- AO in the assessment order has not initiated the penalty proceedings for a specific charge i.e. for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It means that the AO is not sure about the charge on which he is initiating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] . We noted that at the time of hearing the learned Sr. DR has not doubted the facts of the case but pointed out that there is due application of mind by the AO which can be demonstrated from the discussion in the assessment order and the order of CIT(A), wherein if discussed the reasons for the disallowance of depreciation, he has recorded the satisfaction that the penalty proceedings are initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealing of particulars of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We are of the view, that the DR has admitted to demonstrate the application of mind by the AO but it is no difference in as much as that the AO in assessment order as initiated the penalty proceedings for both the charges i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|