TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference to applicability of specific limb. Therefore, we are of the opinion that considering the above referred binding judgments such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, we are of the opinion that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on this legal issue. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is set-aside and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Accordingly, the legal grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed on technicalities. In view of the same, we find, adjudication of the merits of penalty, become an academic exercise. Hence, merits-linked grounds are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted. 4. holding the disallowance of claim U/s.80IA could be inferred as conscious concealment of the particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars attracting provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) and levying penalty of ₹ 23,27,607/- under the said section. It is prayed that the contention be rejected and the penalty be deleted. The appellant named above craves leave to add, to alter and to modify the grounds of appeal if and when required. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in printing and publishing of newspaper and periodicals. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total income of ₹ 10,93,06,133/-. The Assessing Officer issued notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to specific limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. In this regard, our attention is drawn to Para 6.4 of the assessment order and submitted that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for making wrong claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act . 6. Further, bringing our attention to the penalty order, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . Ld. Counsel for the assessee read out the relevant lines from Para 4.8 of the penalty order. 7. Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of AO/CIT(A). BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 8. We heard both the parties on this specific legal issue, i.e. mentioning specific limbs of Clause (c) of Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction of ₹ 64,88,107/-. I, therefore, levy penalty of ₹ 23,27,607/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act From the above, it is evident that at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment, AO held that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated for making wrong claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a). But at the time of levying penalty qua in penalty order, AO held that the assessee has committed a default within the meaning of Explanation-1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction of ₹ 64,88,107/-. 10. Thus, this manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,666/-. The action being bad in law it is submitted that that the penalty be deleted. 3. not accepting and I or not considering and l or holding that the arguments the explanation given. submissions made, and arguments advanced by the assessee are not convincing and as such are not acceptable and thereby levying penalty of ₹ 1,76,29,666/- U/s 271(1)(c). It is submitted that the explanations given by the assessee be considered and accepted and the penalty be deleted. The appellant named above craves leave to add, to alter and to modify the grounds of appeal if and when required. 13. Briefly stated relevant facts include that the assessee filed return of income on 08.12.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 29,07,60,184/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act is relevant for extraction. Therefore, the same is reproduced as under: .I proceed to treat the profit derived on sale of shares which were treated as long term capital assets and short term capital assets as provides derived from trading business. Hence, the profit derived from trading in shares and units of ₹ 11,20,27,918.76/- is treated as business income. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income/ filing inaccurate particulars of income of ₹ 5,28,64,61,185/- which was treated as capital gains. 16. We also perused the penalty order dated 28.03.2011 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
