TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctional High Court in this case, we conclude that there is no proper recording of satisfaction by the Ld. AO while initiating the penalty proceedings. AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, proper notice is necessary and because of the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act and on the facts of this case, it is difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass the order levying the penalty. Because of non-recording of proper satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings, the penalty cannot be sustained. We accordingly quash the penalty proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 1286/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2019 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also that an amount of ₹ 36,09,352/-was deposited in capital gain account within the prescribed limit under section 139 (1) of the Act. Assessee admitted her mistake in claiming deduction under section 54-F of the Act and filed a revised computation of income without claiming the deduction under section 54-F of the Act, resulting in the addition of that amount to the income of the assessee. Further in respect of the interest on housing loan to the tune of ₹ 1.5 Lacs, the possession of the flat is not handed over by the builder to the assessee till the date of passing of the order and the assessee by way of revised computation excluded her claim for interest, and such an amount was also added back to the income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keting (P) Ltd. 2008 (172) TAXMAN 83. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Order dated 25/3/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act clearly shows that the learned Assessing Officer made three additions namely, ₹ 77,48,487/-under the head capital gains being long-term capital gain with indexation, ₹ 1.5 Lacs under the head income from house property withdrawing interest claimed on housing loan and ₹ 14,587/-being the interest on savings bank account. However learned Assessing Officer did not recorded his satisfaction under any of these heads. At the end, learned Assessing Officer recorded that penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was being is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax -Vs- Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory(2013) 359 ITR 565. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
