TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXI I, Kolkata dated 08.11.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10, where the first appellate authority has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . The grounds of appeal read as follows:- (1) For that the penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is void-ab-initio. The ld. AO had not recorded the reasons specifically while initiating it in assessment order. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted. (2) For that the assessee during assessment proceeding accepted the addition made and as per the order u/s 143(3) of the Act agreed to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i .e. , whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee rel ied on the order of the B Bench, Kolkata of this Tribunal in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs.- ACIT, Circle-55, Kolkata in ITA No. 1303/KOL/2010 order dated 06.11.2015, where the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. - Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 218 Taxman 423 (Kar.) was followed. In this judgment at para 63, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows: - (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essential element for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s either to initiate penalty proceedings or impose penalty, unless it is discernible from the assessment order that, it is on account of such unearthing or enquiry concluded by authorities it has resulted in payment of such tax or such tax liability came to be admitted and if not it would have escaped from tax net and as opined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. (l) Only when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. (m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as concealment of income and furnishing of incorrect particulars would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings . (Emphasis ours). 3. The Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against this decision. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. vs. - M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows, Bangalore North Taluk in ITA No. 380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 has held as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
