TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed in "Kaushalya Group of cases" on 26.03.2009 at various business premises and the residential premises of the Di rectors and associates. The group made total disclosure of Rs. 6 crores in the hands of various assesses of the group. In the case of instant assessee, disclosure of additional income of Rs. 7,96,291/- was made for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08. For the impugned assessment year disc losure of Rs. 2,25,659/- was made. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,31,767/- which includes the additional income of Rs. 2,25,659/-. The original return of income was filed on 31.01.2008, wherein the additional income was not declared. The assessment was completed on 31.12.2010 at the assessed inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olkata u/s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act". 4. Section 271 (1)(c) reads as under:- "271 (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or (d) ..... He may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - Explanation 1- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, - (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false Or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars of income. In the absence of such findings, the order would be bad in law. The case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd., 282 ITR 642, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: - "It is incumbent upon the assessing officer to state whether the penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. Held, that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear cut finding had been reached. The Tribunal had failed to appreciate this legal issue. The ration in CIT V. Manu Engineering Works 132 ITR 306 (Guj) was applicable and the order of penalty could not be upheld by the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is not correct, true or accurate, it would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. For example, in case of businessman, if a particular transaction of sale is not shown in the books, it would amount to concealment of particulars of income while sale is shown but at a lesser value, it would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In my opinion, Explanation 1 to section 271(1) (c) cannot be applied where charge against the 'Assessee' is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since it provides a deeming fiction qua concealment of particulars of income only and consequently cannot be extended to a case where charge against the 'Assessee' is furnishing of inaccurate particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the assessee in respect of any facts material to the computation of his total income offers an explanation, which, the assessee is not able to substantiate and also fails to prove that such explanation was bona fide one and that all the facts relating to the computation of total income have been disclosed by him. The presumption available under explanation to section 271(1) (c), cannot be drawn unless the case of the assessee falls under either of the clauses (a) or (b). 10. In this case, the Assessing Officer has not brought out any specific charge for which the penalty has been imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. He has not brought out whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or whether the ass....