TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing power of enhancement. It is a well settled law that the authority who has recorded satisfaction alone can levy penalty. In our considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the present case has exceeded his jurisdiction and has levied penalty on the addition for which the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer. A conjoint reading of satisfaction recorded and the order levying penalty shows that there was ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer while levying penalty. The satisfaction has been recorded for concealment and penalty has been levied for both the charges i.e. inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The order levying penalty set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c), the Assessing Officer levied penalty only in respect of undisclosed interest income ₹ 1,12,000/- . The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against levy of penalty. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) not only confirmed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on addition of ₹ 1,12,000/- but also enhanced penalty by levying penalty in respect of undisclosed income declared by the assessee i.e. ₹ 12,00,000/-. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming penalty on addition of ₹ 1,12,000/-, as well as the levy of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on addition of undisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4. 4. On the other hand Mrs. Shweta Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for sustaining the penalty proceedings. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. In the present case the assessee has assailed levy of penalty on merits as well as on legal ground i.e. defect in recording of satisfaction. A perusal of assessment order shows that while recording of satisfaction for levy of penalty in respect of additional income ₹ 12,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer has observed as under : 5.2 The assessee has filed the original return of income with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come declared ₹ 12,00,000/- after recording of satisfaction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings levied penalty on the above said additional income by exercising power of enhancement. It is a well settled law that the authority who has recorded satisfaction alone can levy penalty. In our considered view, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the present case has exceeded his jurisdiction and has levied penalty on the addition for which the satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer. The penalty on ₹ 12,00,000/- is liable to be deleted on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well. 8. In respect of addition of interest income ₹ 1,12,000/- the Assessing Officer has recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery (supra) has held that where satisfaction has been recorded for one breach u/s. 271(1)(c) and the penalty has been levied for another, such order levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not permissible. The relevant extract of the order of Hon ble High Court reads as under : 6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (supra)] wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
