TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,96,340 imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as ground Nos. 2 and 3 being general in nature, requires no deliberation from our side. 3. During arguments, we have heard Smt. Preeti Garg, learned senior Departmental Representative and Shri Sudhir Sehgal and Shri Ashok Goyal, learned counsels for the assessee. 4. The major plea of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that satisfaction has been duly recorded by the AO in the assessment order while initiating penalty and a detailed penalty order has been passed. Plea was also raised that the Tribunal on quantum appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and specifically invited our attention to p. 11, para 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd part payment has been accepted. This alone cannot be sufficient ground for levy of penalty and the addition has been deleted. Reliance was also placed on the decision pronounced in the decision in that case Hukamchand Shankarlal vs. CWT (1984) 43 CTR (Raj) 240 : (1987) 163 ITR 1 (Raj), Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Co. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 189 : (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC), Addl. CIT vs. Sadiq Ali Bros. (1973) 92 ITR 276 (J K) and Roshan Lal Madan vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 62 TTJ (Chd)(TM) 1 : (2000) 245 ITR 36 (AT)(Chd). The learned counsel for the assessee strongly defended the orders of the learned first appellate authority. It was also pinpointed that payments were made in 1981 but inadvertently name of the bank could not be mentioned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the sales determining the interest at Rs. 3,85,930 against which the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein vide order dt. 17th Oct., 2000 the addition of Rs. 4,84,450 was confirmed representing liability in the name of M/s Globe Engg. Works. The AO levied the penalty on the plea that the Tribunal has confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,84,450 as bogus liability. Total penalty of Rs. 2,96,340 being 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded under s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was levied by AO which was deleted by the learned CIT(A). Now, the question arises, is there any concealment of income or the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as has been narrated by the Revenue. 6. At the outset, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me has been determined, that, by comparing it with the returned income of the assessee, the test of the same being less than eighty percent of the former can be applied. It is only when this test is satisfied and the case squarely falls within the ambit of the higher levels of concealment that the latter part of the Explanation comes into play. Therefore, the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings must be kept sharply distinct and independent from each other." If the aforesaid conclusion of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is analysed, it speaks about that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings must be kept sharply distinct and independent from each other. In view of aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c). We are aware that penalty is not imposable if there is no conscious breach of law. For this proposition, we are fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court pronounced in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). At the same time, the conduct of the assessee must be conscious as was held by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 186 CTR (SC) 721 : (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC). The expression that "has concealed the particulars of income" and "has furnished inaccurate particulars of income" have not been defined either in s. 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in detail although they may lead to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and deleted the penalty. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raunak Ram Nand Lal, Mandi Dabwali vs. ITO (2005) 27 IT Rep. 108 (Chd). The Hon'ble Bench placed reliance upon various judicial pronouncements from Hon'ble apex Court and also of various High Courts which are available at p. 109 of the said order. The penalty was held to be not justified. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. M/s VXL (India) Ltd. (ITA No. 54/Asr/1999) wherein reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements and appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 7. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, we have not found any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
