TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the settled preparation of law on this aspect we’re of the considered opinion that the penalty cannot be sustained. We accordingly crash the penalty proceedings and direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.5724/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Dinesh Verma Hardeep Singh For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 13/09/2013 in Appeal No. 540/11-12 passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-1, New Delhi (for short Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal. 3. It is argued on behalf of the assessee that the moment assessee came to know the error that had crept in the return of income, they have filed a revised return of income and the mistake was purely accidental and not intentional, but the ld. AO without appreciating this fact opined that there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However while issuing notice under section 271 read with Section 274 of the Act, there was no clarity as to whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars thereof for which such a notice was given. Placing reliance on the decision reported in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and In CIT vs. SSA s Emerald M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which amounts to concealment thereof, thereby making an omnibus allegation. 6. Vide paragraph 60 in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra), the Hon ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :- 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty which, when passed, was not sustainable. 7. In CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (ITA 380/2015) the Hon ble Karnataka High Court considered the question of law as to,- Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? And the Hon ble High Court ruled answering the same in favour of the assessee observing that: The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
