TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That is, assessing officer has not ticked any of the limbs for initiation of the penalty. It is by now well settled that while issuing a notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to specify as to what is the default on the part of the assessee, as to whether the case is one of furnishing inaccurate particulars, or whether it is a case of concealment of income, or both. As no clear finding was given by the assessing officer regarding the invocation of the limb in the penalty notice. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai [ 2007 (5) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT ] held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. [2] With the Assessing Officer failing to specify in the assessment order as to whether the proceedings were initiated for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty order was required to be knocked down in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-ITR-642). [3] The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: During the assessment proceedings, assessing officer noticed that assessee trust had accumulated incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has been on totally incorrect premises, as the said amount represents nothing but statutory 15% of ₹ 75,60,782/- being total gross income of the assessee. This is 15% accumulation allowed u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. This ought to have actually no relevance with accumulation u/s. 11(2) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the penalty. It is by now well settled that while issuing a notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to specify as to what is the default on the part of the assessee, as to whether the case is one of furnishing inaccurate particulars, or whether it is a case of concealment of income, or both. As stated above, no clear finding was given by the assessing officer regarding the invocation of the limb in the penalty notice. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai - 292 ITR 11 (SC) held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. From the facts of the present case, it is abundantly clear that Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) by punishing the assessee treating the assessee in default as an offence, if it is proved that it was caused by willful failure. These are the three varying degrees of defaults and the statute clearly keeps up the distinction between the three modes. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [ 83 ITR 26), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that whether the penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all relevant circumstances and that even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose a penalty when there is a mere technical or venial bre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
