TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. As in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [ 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that where the inappropriate words in the notice issued for levy of penalty are not struck off and the notice does not specify as to whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. Since in the instance case also, AO has not struck off the inappropriate words and the notice does not specify as to whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income, therefore, penalty levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her return of income declaring the same income which was originally returned and during the course of assessment proceedings had surrendered the income of Rs.2,47,395/-, the Assessing Officer in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.84,090/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. According to him, law does not provide that when an assessee makes a disclosure and claims it to be voluntary regarding his unexplained income, he has to be absolved from penal provisions especially when the case was taken up for scrutiny on that very issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before me. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in her return of income has not disclosed the correct receipts since there was difference in Form 26AS and income declared. I find on being questioned by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee surrendered the amount and the Assessing Officer thereafter levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee this was an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee since the bank account was not obtained and, therefore, penalty should not be levied since it was a bona-fide mistake. It is also the alternate contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that inappropriate words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
