TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2008- 09 are as under: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in the levy of penalty u/s. 27(1)(c) in violation of law inasmuch as that the penalty levied is without specifying the charge of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty could not have been levied in such circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs. CIT 282 ITR 642 and thus deserves to be quashed. 2. Without pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prejudice to the above the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has further erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in the levy of penalty u/s.27(1)(c) on the failure to: (a) substantiate the credits in terms of Sec.68 of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.7,01,000/- is concealment of particulars of income and (b) satisfactorily explain the source of investment of Rs.2,24,222/- is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- so confirmed on such additions is prayed to be cancelled". 3. Your appellant craves liberty to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the A.O. is not specific as to whether the assessee is guilty of both defaults or any one particular default then only it can be said that the penalty order is defective. 7. Learned A.R. for the assessee has placed reliance on a tribunal decision in which the penalty proceedings were quashed by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of New Sorathia Engineer Co. Vs. CIT (supra) & CIT Vs. Manu Engineering Works reported in (1980) 122 ITR 306. He submitted the copy of five decisions passed by the tribunal in the paper book. 8. We have considered the rival submissions regarding the technical aspect and we find that in the present case, the allegation of the A.O. in the penalty order is specific that assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT Vs. Becharbhai P. Parmar reported in 341 ITR 499 and (c) Charandas Haridas Vs. CIT reported in [1960] 39 ITR 202 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel reported in 291 ITR 202. 10. We have considered the rival submissions regarding merit of the penalty order and we find that it was held by the tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Chhail Bihari (supra) that the difference between the two limbs of Section 271(1)(C) is not erased by the retrospective amendment. These two limbs are stated to be concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal in this case has simply followed the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra). We have already discussed that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee had received unsecured loan from four persons of Rs.6.35 lacs and despite several opportunities, the assessee had not furnished any material to substantiate his claim of the amount being received as loan in spite of this that the assessee was asked to establish the identity of the loan creditors and their creditworthiness and also genuineness of these transactions. In this year, the A.O. has made one more addition of Rs.2,16,838/- on account of negative cash balance. One more addition was made of Rs.4,58,030/- in respect of sundry creditors by invoking Section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 12. In course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has raised objection on technical aspects as to whether the penalty proceedings is fo....