TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act on the charge which is different than the charge initiated i.e. charge initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty levied under different charge for filing of inaccurate particulars of income. See SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Specific charge - AO while levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in his discussion clearly stated that the expression used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” and “concealing the particulars of income” are two distinct term but according to him both lead to the same effect. He acknowledged that making bogus claim of expenses/ expenditure/ deduction / excess claim of depreciation amounts to furnish of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Not considering the fact that the appellant firm had commenced business on 121.11.2005 and the first accounting year ended on 31.0.3.2006, which corresponds to the Assessment Year under appeal and that since the work carried out on the project was less than 20% of the total project cost could not have earned any income so as to file its return of income. b) holding that since mens rea is no longer an essential ingredient for levy of penalty under section 271(I)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Dharrnendra Textile Processors and Ors [306 ITR-277(SC)and therefore, willful or conscious concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability; C) holding that though the A.O has not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. Hence, the notice dated 31.12.2010 and the subsequent penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are void ab initio and the same may be quashed. 4. The assessee contended that this additional ground challenging the validity of notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act as well as penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is a legal issue and needs to be admitted and to be adjudicated in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR objected to admission of additional ground but could not controvert the argument of assessee s counsel. Hence, we admit this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in his discussion clearly stated that the expression used in section 271(1)(c) of the Act furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income are two distinct term but according to him both lead to the same effect. He acknowledged that making bogus claim of expenses/ expenditure/ deduction / excess claim of depreciation amounts to furnish of inaccurate particulars income and therefore false claim of expenditure would amount to concealing the particulars of income or deliberate in furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. This issue is dealt by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) wherein Hon ble Bombay High Court relying o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
