TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty under s.271(1)(c) quashed where officer's satisfaction cited inaccurate particulars but penalty alleged concealment deemed void for vagueness</h1> <h3>SSE Commodities P. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 24 (1), CR Building, Delhi</h3> SSE Commodities P. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 24 (1), CR Building, Delhi - TMI Appeal against CIT(A) order dated 29.02.2024 confirming penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11. Delay of one day in filing the appeal was condoned. AO levied penalty in respect of additions of Rs. 7,50,000 allegedly on account of accommodation entries from M/s. Victory Software P. Ltd.; assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263. AO recorded: 'I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.7,50,000/-.' Yet while imposing penalty the AO stated: 'The assessee has not furnished any evidence to the effect that the assessee has not concealed particulars of income. Accordingly it is held that penalty is leviable u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income.' Tribunal found this internal inconsistency fatal, noting that 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' are distinct concepts (T. Ashok Pai) and that penalty must clearly identify the limb under s. 271(1)(c) (CIT v. Virgo Marketing). Penalty held unsustainable; impugned order set aside and appeal allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
