TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the penalty order, the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income as the assessee could not prove that there was no concealment. In the penalty order, the penalty is ultimately imposed for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, apparently the assessee was not made aware of the charge for which the penalty was being proposed to be imposed and was finally imposed. See M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.583/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2020 - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of ₹ 15,45,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is, neither on facts or in law, justified in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹ 15,45,500 - u/s 271(1 )(c) for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty proceedings had been initiated as per the order of assessment for one default which is furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO was not justified changing over the default while levying the penalty in consequent of such initiation for the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. It was further submitted that in the penalty order, the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Assessing Officer also stated that the assessee could not prove that there was no concealment. It was submitted that, thus, there has been total non application of mind by the Assessing Officer and that the Assessing Officer kept of switching between the two limbs of default. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer also invoked Explanation-1 to Sec.271(1)(c) which applies to concealment of particulars of income, for which the penalty proceedings had not been initiated. It was submitted that there was a complete failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to specify the charge for which the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, all the same, it is trite that imposition of penalty does not automatically follow the confirmation of quantum addition. We have gone through the notice dated 03.03.2014 issued u/s 274 of the Act and we note in this notice, irrelevant words in the penalty notice have not been struck of and, thus, the notice does not specify as to under which the limb of section 271(1)(c) was the penalty being proposed to imposed. We also note that right from the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has been inconsistent in his approach regarding the imposition of penalty. As has been rightly brought to our notice by the Ld. Authorized Representative, it is seen that in page -4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and has held that there was no error committed by this Tribunal in deleting the penalty. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. , being the jurisdictional High Court for the assessee and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) we have no option but to set the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. It is so directed accordingly. 5.1 Before parting, we would also like to state that the Revenue s reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
