TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that the Tribunal, allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law since the order did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings had been initiated, there was no substantial question of law which arose for determination. Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer in relation to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. See M/S. GOLDEN PEACE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. [ 2021 (3) TMI 195 - SC ORDER] . In Goa Dourado P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding order of Ld. A.O. of levy penalty of Rs. 3,77,590/- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.12.2006 showing total income of Rs. 6,91,760/- after claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act of Rs. 9,11,765/-. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made additions on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80-IB(10) (Rs. 9,11,765/-), disallowance of bad debts (Rs. 1,43, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come with the express purpose of evasion of tax. 9. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income in respect of commission charged for providing accommodation entries. Therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, I levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) rws 274 of the Act @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 5. The assessee filed appeal against the penalty order before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- There is no denying the fact that the additions made by the AO to the total income of the appellant on which the penalty has been imposed has been upheld by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in opposing the orders if any authority has held otherwise. Thus the relevant ground of appeal is required to be dismissed. 6.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case I find no basis to interfere with the penalty order being impugned by the appellant. 7. The appeal is dismissed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) upholding levy of penalty u/s penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first contention of the Counsel for the assessee before us is that the ITAT in the previous years and up to A.Y. 2005-06 had allowed the assessee s claim for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act, on similar set of facts. Further, even for the impugned assessment year unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of income. Therefore, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is well settled law that recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite before initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and since, in the instant case, no such satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer either in the body of the assessment order or in the show cause notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) itself is bad in law. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A), in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused materials on record. Before going into the merits of levy of penalty, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by assessee was sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings and in absence of such satisfaction, both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal had correctly ordered to drop penalty proceedings against assessee. In the case of Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 630 (Bombay) , the Bombay High Court held that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer in relation to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. In the case of PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 574 (Bombay) , the Bombay High Court held that where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
