TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the returns of income filed by the assessee. The deposits had been made in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. This deposit earned interest income in A.Y. 2004-05 and the subsequent A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2008-09. The interest so earned by the assessee had not been offered to tax by the assessee in the returns of income filed for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09. Similarly, the assessee also did not declare interest received on SB account for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09. 5. The assessee filed revised returns of income offering the value of FDs in A.Y. 2004-05 as well as interest accrued on FDs and SB Account for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. The following table would explain the income originally offered and the income offered in the revised return filed for the various assessment years:- Asst. Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Date of filing of return of income 29/10/04 30/10/05 30/10/05 30/10/07 28/09/08 Income declared (in Rs.) 4,46,878 3,41,916 2,94,883 1,06,990 6,71,860 Revised (belated return filed) 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 Additional income declared (in Rs.) 13,66,704 3,25,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aling particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for any other reason as irrelevant columns of the printed form of notice u/s. 274 have not been struck off by the AO. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Court has also held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb and find the assessee guilty in another limb is bad in law. It was submitted that in the present case, the aforesaid decision will squarely apply and all the orders imposing penalty have to be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. 13. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherein the CIT(A) has express....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Otherwise though the initiation of penalty proceedings may be valid and legal, the final order imposing penalty would offend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessment Officer to initiate the proceedings because of the deeming provision contained in Section 1(B). h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. I) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. k) Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and i....