TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the particulars of income has been indicated. It is a settled law that while levying penalty for concealment, the AO has to record satisfaction and thereafter come to a finding in respect of one of the limbs, which is specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first step is to record satisfaction while completing the assessment as to whether the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer thereafter has to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of ₹ 69,43,000/- was levied by the AO vide order dated 24.09.2015 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 06.12.2016 in Appeal No.270/2015-16/GZB dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) eared in sustaining the order of penalty which is imposed on a/c of rejection of claim of loss duly disclosed in return with its full particulars against the ratio of Hon ble Apex Court/ jurisdiction High Court, hence principles of judicial discipline defeated. 2. Because, Learned Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but on the contrary has recorded it to be concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He thereafter pointed to the copy of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 20.03.2015 which is placed at Page 50 of the paper book. From the aforesaid notice, he pointed that the AO has not specified the applicable limb for which the penalty has been levied. He therefore submitted that as the notice did not specify as to for which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty has been initiated, the notice issued is bad in law and for this proposition he relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. Thereafter, notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer thereafter has to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 8. We further find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITA No.475/2019 and other connected matters) order dated 02.08.2019 in similar situation upheld the order of ITAT whereby ITAT had deleted the penalty by observing as under: 21. The Respondent had challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
