Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 492 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO has not struck off inapplicable charge/limb - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled proposition of law that the expressions “concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” connote different meanings. This legal position has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] which has been reproduced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT [2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT] In the instant case, we have noticed that the assessing officer was not clear on the charge/limb he wanted to invoke in respect of disallowance made by him while computing book profit. In the assessment order, he has not referred to any of the link. In the penalty order, the AO states initially that it is a case of concealment of income, but proceeds to levy penalty for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra), the addition may fall under any of the two limbs. We notice that the assessee has fully disclosed all the particulars relating to waiver benefits in its return of income. Hence it cannot certainly a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income at all. All these factors would show that the AO was not clear as to charge for which he has initiated penalty proceedings. In any case, we have noticed that the AO has also not struck off inapplicable limb in the penalty notice, which further fortifies the case that the assessing officer has not applied his mind. Hence, as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] the penalty order is liable to be quashed.
|