TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - GUJARAT High Court] and New Sorathia Engineering Co. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax [2006 (1) TMI 71 - GUJARAT High Court] - the Assessing Officer is required to give clear finding whether the assessee is guilty of concealing the income and/or furnishing incorrect particulars of income – thus, there was no reason to interfere in the order of the ITAT – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 498 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2013 - M. R. Shah And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Varun K. Patel, Advocate JUDGMENT (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant revenue challenging the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that while passing the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposing penalty upon the assessee the Assessing Officer used the words inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income . The order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty came to be confirmed by the CIT(A) by interpreting the observations made by the Assessing Officer as under; In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer used expressing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income thereby the meaning that is inaccurate particulars of income which relates to concealment of income . 3.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasicriminal case, but it was incumbent upon the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear-cut finding was reached by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was liable to be struck down. 4.1. Similar view has been subsequently expressed by another Division Bench in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (Supra). Considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions and the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
