TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be said that the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the order imposing the penalty was passed. The very basis for penalty proceedings against the assessee initiated by the Income-tax Officer disappeared when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no suppression of income of the assessee. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment was correct - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 28(Asr)/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - A.D. Jain, Member and T.S. Kapoor, Member , JJ. For Appellant: Tarun Bansal, Adv. For Respondents: R.K. Sharda, D.R. ORDER T.S. Kapoor, Member (A) 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), Jalandhar, dated 06.11.2013, for the Asst. Year 2004-05. The assessee had earlier taken various grounds of appeal. Vide application dated 27.08.2014, the assessee had also filed additional grounds of appeal, however by letter dated 21.12.2015 the assessee has withdrawn the additional grounds of appeal and has requested that amended grounds filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to page 23 of the order and submitted that Assessing Officer had recorded satisfaction for issuing penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the penalty order the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and in this respect he invited our attention to page 3 of penalty order dated 11.5.2009. Therefore, he argued that penalty order passed by Assessing Officer is void ab initio as Assessing Officer has recorded different satisfaction in assessment order and in penalty order. 3. The learned AR, further submitted that CIT(A) while confirming the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) has confirmed penalty on concealment of income and ignored that the learned Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction in quantum order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and in this respect he invited our attention to findings of learned CIT(A) as placed in paper book page 197 and in view of the above the learned AR submitted that if the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealing particulars of income, the AO has to levy penalty only for concealment of income and not for furnishing inac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r different heads in the profit and loss account as discussed above. 6. We further find that Assessing Officer in the penalty order has recorded the following satisfaction. I am, therefore, satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 20,41,931/- and it is a fit case of imposing of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, penalty of ₹ 7,32,655/- is imposed upon the assessee, which is the minimum provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. From the above two satisfactions recorded by Assessing Officer in assessment order and in penalty order we find that penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of various unaccounted purchases and sales and on account of disallowances whereas the satisfaction recorded in penalty order reveals that assessee had concealed the particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 20,41,931/-. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income are the two limbs of Section 271(1)(c) which is apparent from the language of the section itself wherein the two limbs has been differentiated by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o non-application of mind. Similarly the Hon'ble Amritsar Bench in the case of Jayesh R. Kumari v. ITO, in ITA No. 453, under similar facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour of assessee by holding as under: We have heard both the parties at length and considered their rival contentions with reference to facts evidence and material placed on record. It is obvious that the issue in relating to levy of penalty and the grounds are inter - related. We accordingly proceed to adjudicate the issue in its entirety and no ground-wise. It is an admitted fact that the show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee for concealing the particulars of income and penalty has been levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has rightly argued that concealing particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposing penalty. Show cause notice under section 275 of the I.T. Act has been issued for concealing particulars of the income. The assessee has been heard on the issue of concealing particulars of income. He has not been heard on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
