TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, the Assessing officer has levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. At the same time, it is also noted on perusal of the penalty order that the finding so given is not specific to three separate disallowances and the AO has merely gone by the order of the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings where additions have been sustained and has not given any specific finding as to how the disallowances so made and sustained results in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In case of Shweta construction [ 2016 (12) TMI 1603 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that the Assessing officer has to give a specific notice while initiating the penalty proceedings itself. In the instant case, the show-cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his order dated 29.06.2017. Against the said order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty on certain issues and sustained the levy of penalty on three issues namely disallowance of discount claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹ 18,05,716/-, the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to ₹ 64,468/- and disallowance of unpaid VAT u/s 43B of the Act. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The 1st ground of appeal taken by the assessee reads as under:- 1. That neither in assessment order there is satisfaction of learned AO as to concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in Gulam Farooq Ansari vs ITO (2018) 194 TTJ (JP) 719, Jai Ambey Associates, Jaipur vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Jaipur (ITA No. 801/JP/2016 TW (May 2018), and Prem Kumar Sanghi vs DCIT circle 2, Jaipur (ITA No. 291/JP/2018). 5. It was further submitted that the ld CIT(A) relying decision on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi 216 ITR 660, rejected their submissions and sustained penalty of ₹ 965,680/-. It was submitted that decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is dated 06.12.2016 wherein after discussing ratio of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip N. Shroff and Hon'ble AP High Court in Chennakerava Pharumaceuticals in detail, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (6 supra ) which has been approved in Dilip N. Shroff's case (10 supra) continues to be valid and this part of the judgment in Diiip N. Shroff's case (10 supra) has not been over ruled and continues to be good law. Moreover the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises (6 supra)was also followed by the same High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K.Sharma(9 supra) and SLP(c) No.17591 of 2008 filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.7.2008. Applying the above principle that the assessing officer should record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are enough material to show that the action on the part of the appellant may not be said to be such which would attract the penal provision under s. 271(1)(c). For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 7. He contended that while concluding the assessment order the officer must be clear whether it is the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate detail. He cannot have both the things. 7.1 However, Mr. Singhi appearing for the department submits that a perusal of the order of penalty makes it amply clear that both the things are fulfilled. In that vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me for the assessment year 2008- 09 it appears to me that you:- Have concealed the particulars of yours income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 12:30 P.M on 20.01.2011 in my office at C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota and show cause why an order imposing a penalty should not be made u/s 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through an authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made u/s 271. (Prem Prakash Meena) Asstt. Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
