TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court, we allow this appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 1940/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. ITA No. 022/11-12 dated 23.12.2015. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panvel (in short ITO) for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has not challenged this addition in appeal and accepted the quantum addition. Thereafter the AO started the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as in the assessment order the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO while levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28-06-2011 levied the penalty on both the charges i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealing the particulars of income. The AO has levied the penalty vide Para 5,6 and 7 of the penalty order which reads as under:- 5: Due consideration was given to the explanation offered by the assessee. The provision of the section 271(1) (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement that willful concealment is essential for attracting concealment penalty. It is held that Object behind enactment of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. Penalty under that provision is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. 6. In this case, since the assesses was unable to reconcile the difference in accounts of the assesses which amounts to ₹ 3,74,436/- with documentary evidence, the some was brought to tax by the AO. Similarly, in respect of two contract receipts totaling to ₹ 12,28,246/- which was not reflected in its sale7 by the assessee, it was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
