9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the Assessee by the AO are that the Assessee who is a salaried employee and worked with two different Companies in the FY 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12 as per the following details:- 1) Honeywell Automation India Ltd. 2) Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Sl No. Name and address of the company Period worked Emoluments received (Rs.) 1 Honeywell Automation India Ltd. 01.40.2010 to 30.09.2010 6,51,344 2 Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 13,27,103 Total emoluments received 19,78,447 3. The assessee while filing his return of income has declared the salary of Rs. 7,84,124. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entional and that in the assessment proceedings when the mistake was realized, the same was corrected without any demur. It was not a case of either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, but due to bonafide mistake. 7. The AO proceeded to impose penalty on the Assessee which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). Against the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Assessee who submitted that the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act before imposing penalty does not specify as to whether the Assessee is guilty of having "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or of having "concealed particulars of such income". He pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn), has held that notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Court has also held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb and find the assessee guilty in another limb is bad in law. It was submitted that in the present case, the aforesaid decision will squarely apply and the order imposing penalty has to be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
