TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. A perusal of the above facts shows that the Ld. AO has applied both the limbs simultaneously i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars for which the penalty was being initiated against the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court) has observed that the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different and carry different connotations. The Hon’ble Court further held that non-striking off of the relevant portions of standard show-cause notice reflects non-application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2016 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was saddled with a penalty of ₹ 50.99 Lacs vide penalty order dated 19/08/2014. 3. The assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28/04/2016 where the assessee, inter-alia, drew attention to the fact that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 10A which was inadvertently deducted while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB which resulted into negative Book Profits and therefore, no tax was paid by the assessee u/s 115JB. The assessee also placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 dated 30/12/2015 to contend that penalty was not attracted in case the tax was paid u/s 115JB. Reliance was placed on several judicial pronouncements for various contentions. Finally, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty was being initiated and therefore, there was no strength in assessee s legal grounds. On merits, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in Sri Gokulam Hotels India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [49 Taxmann.com 543 09/07/2014] for the contention that penalty was leviable in case the assessee failed to pay the tax within the meaning of Section 115JB. 5. We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material including cited case laws. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has been assessed at Rs. Nil under the normal provisions and tax has been paid by the assessee u/s 115JB. The perusal of return of income in ITR-6 as placed on Page Numbers 116 to 139 reveals that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing initiated against the assessee. The aforesaid two limbs, as per settled legal pronouncements, carry different meaning and connotations. The three events, as stated above, put together, reveal that Ld. AO has failed to adhere to the settled legal propositions while imposing penalty on the assessee which is quite evident from certain legal judicial pronouncements as enumerated by us in the succeeding paragraphs. 7. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (291 ITR 519) has observed that the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different and carry different connotations. The Hon ble Court further held that non-striking off of the relevant portions of standar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the three events, put together, reflects non-application of mind on the part of AO and the AO himself was not sure about the limb / exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized. Therefore, the penalty order stood vitiated for want of principles of natural justice and hence, liable to be quashed. Respectfully following the catena of judgments on the issue favoring the assessee, we allow assessee s cross objections. 9. Since the assessee s cross objection has been allowed by us in terms of our above order, the question of delving into revenue s grounds of appeal remain merely academic in nature and therefore, we find no reason to ponder over the same. 10. Resultantly, the revenue s appeal ITA No. 4857/Mum/2016 stands dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
