Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (1) TMI 111

e penalty has been levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with regard to the addition made by the A.O. This is followed by a notice for the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in which the specific limb identifying the charge has not been identified - due to absence of satisfaction and identification of the specific charge for levy of penalty, the penalty in this case deserves to be deleted on this account also. See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 276/Pan./2017 - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Ram Lal Negi, JM For the Appellant : Shri Y. V. Raviraj For the Respondent : Shri Shrinivas Nayak ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rt judgments during the course of assessment proceedings to prove that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued by the AO for imposing penalty is bad in law. At no point the assessee was able to explained/prove the reasons for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The action of the assessee does not get diluted by quoting various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of the hearing, the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the order of the Assessing officer restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment order in this case was passed on 28/12/2011 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order, in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

7; 70,20,340/- as mentioned here-in-above. However with regard to these additions, the A.O. in the assessment order has not specified as to whether he was satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or is guilty of concealment of the particulars of income. Thereafter, penalty notice was issued. In the said notice, in the printed format, the relevant limb was not specified as to whether the notice is being issued for the charge of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order, the penalty was levied with reference to the total income of ₹ 4,32,17,051/- as in the assessment order. In the penalty order, the A.O. held that penalty was being levied for concealment o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Act for the 3 assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are invalid and liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, additional ground no.3 raised by the appellant for all the three assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed. 9. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the addition in this case has two components: Income returned by the assessee Rs.3,61,96,711/- Addition made by the A.O. Rs.70,20,340/- Total Rs.4,32,17,051/- As regards the levy of penalty on the returned income of ₹ 3,61,96,711/- is concerned, the same cannot be sustained as the penalty for concealment cannot be levied if the income is shown in the return of income .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rs of income with regard to the addition made by the A.O. This is followed by a notice for the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in which the specific limb identifying the charge has not been identified. In such scenario, the learned CIT-A has relied upon several case laws from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Hon ble Apex Court that penalty levied without specification of charge is not sustainable. In this regard, reference has been made to following case laws: - CIT vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2015) 380 ITA (SC) - CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (TS-936-HC-2012 (Kar)) - CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (IT Appeals Nos. 953/1097/1154/1226 of 2014 vide order dated 05.01.2017) 13. In view of the above .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||