Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (6) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] while deleting the penalty upheld that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. We find, the assessee in the instant case had received an amoun on 13th December, 2011 which relates to A.Y. 2012-13 and, therefore, we find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that non-inclusion of the same while computing the income for A.Y. 2014-15 is only an inadvertent and bonafide error which the assessee came to know later on and had voluntarily offered the income and paid tax. A perusal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee at ₹ 42,75,320/- wherein he made an addition of ₹ 4,66,660/- on account of additional income from short-term capital gain offered by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The AO, thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, he has rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. He accordingly levied penalty of ₹ 1,44,200/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO. 5. The ld. counsel for the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... waterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC), he submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court has deleted the penalty on account of bona fide mistake committed. He accordingly submitted that on merit the penalty is not leviable. 6. In his second plank of argument, the ld. counsel, referring to the copy of the notice issued by the AO, submitted that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)has been initiated. Therefore, the penalty so levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the law. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oted that the assessee had surrendered the above income before it was detected by the Department although only statutory notices had been issued. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers, reported in 348 ITR 306, while deleting the penalty upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court at para 19 of the order has observed as under:- 19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iate words in the said notice have not been struck off. The coordinate Benches of the Tribunal following the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee (supra) are consistently taking the view that where the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, then, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable and has to be deleted. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that both factually and legally the penalty so levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to cancel the penalty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates