TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the instant case, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings under one charge, but levied penalty under another charge, which is clearly not permissible as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson perinchery (supra). The sequence of events shows that there is lack of application of mind on the part of the AO. Hence the impugned penalty orders are not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by ld CIT(A) in both the years under consideration and also set aside the penalty orders passed for both the years under consideration. On merits, the Ld A.R submitted that the additions have been made on the basis of loose papers found during the course of search on estimated basis. Accordingly th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has filed these appeals before us. 3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had challenged orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in the quantum assessment proceedings by filing appeals before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has granted relief in respect of certain items, restored certain issues to the file of AO and confirmed certain additions. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is pressing certain legal issues before the Tribunal. 4. Inviting our attention to the assessment orders passed by the AO, the Ld A.R submitted that the AO has not properly applied his mind on the matter of levying of penalty. The Ld A.R invited our attention to the last page of the assessment order and submitted that the AO has state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars of income. He submitted that the provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) contains two limbs viz., concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the AO has charged the assessee in the assessment order with the failure to disclose true particulars of income, but levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income. He submitted that the said action of the AO would lead to quashing of penalty orders as per the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson perinchery (Income tax appeal no.1154 of 2014 and others dated 05 01 2017). 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has not raised any ground with regard to the legal issues urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclose true particulars of income, i.e., for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty notices, the AO did not strike out inapplicable portion. However, in the penalty order, the AO has levied penalty for concealment of particulars of income by invoking Explanation 1 to sec. 271 of the Act. The provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) specifies two different charges, viz., concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case of Samson Perinchery (supra), the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that the initiation of penalty proceedings and levying of penalty should be on the same charge. However, in the instant case, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings under one charge, but levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
