TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. AO thereafter has to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs which gets attracted. Thereafter, notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be issued to the assessee. The aforesaid notice should specifically indicate on what ground penalty is sought to be imposed, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the perusal of assessment order passed by the AO reveals that in the assessment order, no specific finding has been recorded by the AO as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to [CIT (Appeals)], for assessment year 2006-07. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:- The assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of furniture. Assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2006-07 on 28.11.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 25,87,136/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 26.12.2008 and the total taxable income was determined at ₹ 2,36,42,637/- inter alia by making the following disallowances:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty of ₹ 37,58,900/- as levied by ld. AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and sustained by ld. CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary, unjust and not tenable under the law on various factual and legal grounds. 6. Before us, at the outset, ld. AR submitted that the sole controversy is with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The ld. AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the various additions. However, she submitted that in the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer with respect to the disallowance of ₹ 16,15,413/- made on account of travel expenses. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the upholding of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by CIT(A). The AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made by him and upheld by CIT(A). As per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the tax payable by him, a sum which shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of concealment of income or a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further in the notice dated 26.12.2008 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, the copy of which is placed at page 115A of the paper book, the inapplicable portion or limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off. It is a settled law that the two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. Various High Courts have held that AO must indicate in the notice for which of the two limbs he proposes to impose the penalty and for this the notice has to be appropriately marked. If in a printed format of the notice the inapplicable portion is not struck off thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 11. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has been stayed/ set aside/ overruled by higher judicial forum. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
