TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, this Tribunal order renders no help to the Revenue in the present case because of difference in facts. Hence, we respectfully follow the judgment of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and hold that the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 is not sustainable and we delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1772/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - Shri A. K. Garodia, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, AM This appeal is filed by the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular of his income or furnished inadequate particulars of such income and this is not clearly alleged as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inadequate particulars of income. As per the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court cited by the learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), the conclusion of the Hon ble High Court is available in para No.63 of this judgment which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cernible from the assessment order that, it is on account of such unearthing or enquiry concluded by authorities it has resulted in payment of such tax or such tax liability came to be admitted and if not it would have escaped from tax net and as opined by the assessing officer in the assessment order. l)Only when no explanation is offered or the exp lanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. m)If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. 5. In clause (p) of this para 63, this is the conclusion of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court that notice under section 274 of the IT Act, 1961 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inadequate particulars of income. 6. In clause (r) of this para 63 of this judgment, it is also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
