TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for which the impugned penalty proceedings had been initiated by him. But then, we find that A.O had vide another SCN dated 23.11.2016 called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) may not be imposed on him. However, as the contents of the aforesaid SCN dated 23.11.2016 are neither discernible from the records nor brought to our notice us by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee, therefore, in absence of complete facts/records before us, we are unable to concur with the Ld. AR that as the A.O had while initiating penalty proceedings failed to strike off the relevant default in the body of the SCN , therefore, he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment years 2013-14 2014-15. As the issues involved in the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in imposing penalty of Rs. 31,730/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. Additional Ground:- 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 30.12.2016 imposed a penalty of Rs.31,730/- on the assessee for both the defaults contemplated in the aforesaid statutory provision i.e., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income . 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. AR in order to drive home his contentions. At the out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) alleging that the assessee had concealed his income, however, the same, thereafter, had been imposed by him vide his order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 for both the defaults i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view, as both the defaults i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are separate and distinct default which operates in their exclusive fields, therefore, imposition of penalty by the A.O qua the aforesaid solitary addition for both of the aforesaid defaults contemplated in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot not be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. We find that the fine dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e involved in the present appeal remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No.161/RPR/2018 for assessment year 2013-14, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said appeal shall apply mutatis-mutandis for disposing off the present appeal in ITA No.162/RPR/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. In this case also, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and the penalty of Rs.47,080/- imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed with similar terms and observations as mentioned while adjudicating the appeal in in ITA No.161/RPR/2018 for assessment year 2013-14. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.162/RPR/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
