TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated 20.06.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)( CIT(A) ) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order is passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The order is passed against the principle of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO of imposing penalty of ₹ 6,44,026/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty of ₹ 6,44,026/-levied by the Ld. AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is not sustainable and is liable to be cancelled/deleted. 6. The Ld. AO has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, issued Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act stating that the appellant have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed by Hon ble Apex Court. 4. As against this, ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted that in para no. 16 on page no. 6 of the penalty order, the AO has made it clear that he has imposed penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of IT Act for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. DR of revenue also submitted that copy of assessment order for present year is available on pages 5 to 24 of paper book filed by the assessee and in particular, our attention was drawn to page no. 10 of the assessment order available on page no. 23 of paper book and it was pointed out that the AO has made it clear that penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of IT Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. She submitted that in view of this categorical finding of AO in the assessment order which was passed on the same date i.e. 07.03.2016 on which notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued by him, it cannot be said that the notice issued by AO is bad in law and penalty is not sustainable. She placed reliance on a judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of U.P. Mats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) (B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessment Officer to initiate the proceedings because of the deeming provision contained in Section 1(B). h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings recorded in the assessment proceedings in so far as concealment of income and furnishing of incorrect particulars would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It isopen to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. 7. From the above conclusion of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it is seen that it was held in this case that notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271 (1) (c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income and it was also held that sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. It was also held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this case that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically and otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended and on the basis of such proceedings, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
