TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT 2018 (6) TMI 1554 - ITAT AMRITSAR] . Accordingly, we hold that the penalty has been correctly levied in so far as the charge for initiation of penalty as well as charge while levying the penalty was same. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention of the ld AR. With regard to merit of penalty so imposed U/s 271(1)(c) we found that there was survey at the business premises of the assessee wherein it was found that the assessee has made unaccounted sales, therefore, stock was found short on physical verification. To the extent of profit on such short stock, addition was made. This addition was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter by the ITAT. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in so far as the addition has been upheld up to the last extent. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the penalty so imposed. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 675/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2019 - Shri Ramesh C Sharma, AM And Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J For the Assessee : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of assessee were specifically initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as has been evident from the perusal of the assessment order at page 15 para 1. However, while imposing the penalty, ld. AO has recorded the conclusion that assessee has concealed the income in addition to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The ld AR has further submitted that while initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the AO has recorded satisfaction and directed initiation of penalty for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', which is evident from the assessment order, whereas in the penalty order the same has been levied alleging 'concealment of income and also furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. According to provisions of sec. 271 (1)(c), the AO has to show that the assessee has either concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Concealment of income is quite different from furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the satisfaction recorded during assessment proceedings regarding the kind of charge i.e. whether penalty proposed is for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not specifically record in the quantum order as to whether each item of addition/disallowance is a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal have further observed that deeming satisfaction under clause (c) in terms of sub-section (1B) means deeming proper satisfaction and proper satisfaction means getting satisfied as to whether it is a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. 9. With regard to levy of charge at the stage of initiation of penalty by issue of notice U/s 274 vis a vis charge levied in the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the precise observation of the Tribunal was as per para 15 which reads as under: 15. The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as to whether it is a case of 'concealment of particulars of income'; or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'; or both of them, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O. at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings at the time of issue of notice U/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and at the time of passing the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) should not be at variance. If there is any variance between the charge levied at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and the charge levied at the time of imposition of penalty, the penalty order will be vitiated and penalty cannot be sustained. However, if the charge are same then no fault can be found with regard to defect in notice so as to hold that the penalty is not leviable. 11. Now we consider the facts of the instant case with reference to the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we found that for initiating the penalty the A.O. has issued notice U/s 274 of the Act on 27/12/2010 for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income . Thereafter considering the assessee s contention, the A.O. has passed order on 18/03/2015 wherein the penalty was levied after having the following observation: In view of the above discussion, the assessee has concealed his income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of his incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
