Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 462 - ITAT JAIPUR
Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed additional income in return filed U/s 153A on the basis of incriminating document found during the course of search. We have considered view that Explanation 5A is not required to be mentioned by the Assessing Officer specifically at the time of initiation or even in the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, but basic defect we found that the ld Assessing Officer has mentioned at the time of initiation of penalty proceeding under both the limbs i.e. concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income but at the time of notice U/s 274 he simply has ticked in prescribed proforma concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without deleting either limb of penalty even he has not put and in the notice itself between two limbs.
In case of two views of the court, favourable view of the assessee would be taken as held in the case of CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court )
Thus we are of the considered view that initiation of penalty proceedings is not as per law and Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee