Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the satisfaction recorded at the assessment stage referred to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but the penalty order invoked both furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment.
Analysis: The penalty proceedings must be founded on the specific charge for which the Assessing Officer records satisfaction at the time of initiation. Where the assessment order initiates penalty only for furnishing inaccurate particulars, the penalty order cannot travel beyond that charge by additionally invoking concealment. An inconsistency between the recorded satisfaction and the eventual penalty charge creates legal infirmity and vitiates the penalty proceedings.
Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be legally unsustainable and void, and the consequential proceedings were also vitiated.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside and the assessee obtained relief on the legal challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be imposed only on the precise charge for which satisfaction was recorded and notice was issued; it cannot be sustained on an additional or different ground not forming part of the original initiation.