TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held merely a claim which was made bonafide in respect of exemption or deduction is rejected or not only on the basis of levy of penalty, the AO is required to give the clear finding that the claim of exemption as made was with an intention to evade tax. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 176/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2016 - Bhagchand (Accountant Member) And Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : S. L. Poddar (Advocate) For the Revenue : Raghuvir Singh Dagur (Addl. CIT) ORDER Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before us. 5. The only effective ground is against confirmation of penalty by the ld. CIT (A). However, the assessee has also taken an additional ground as reproduced above. 5.1. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee on this ground is that the notice initiating penalty proceedings was not proper as it does not specify the reason for levying of penalty. The ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar.). The ld. Counsel submitted that the AO has not given any specific reason in the show cause notice dated 13th March, 2013 issued to the assessee calling upon her to state as to why penalty on the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the notice issued was not in accordance with law. (iii) That the subject matter of the penalty proceedings was the order of the appellate authority and not the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the order of penalty by the Assessing Officer was not valid. (iv) That when two fact finding authorities were satisfied that the explanation offered by the assessee was not false and it was a bona fide though the assessee had failed to conclusively prove the explanation the levy of penalty was not justified. In the present case also notice has been issued by ticking the stereotyped format. This fact is not controverted by the revenue. Therefore, in our considered view, penalty proceeding is not validly initiated. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held as under :- A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word particulars used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
