AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning whether the penalty has been initiated for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately vide order dated 24.12.2012 after giving the opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the case is covered by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) and, therefore, he imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by observing as under : "5. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and the case is covered by the explanation to the Section 271(1)( c). Therefore, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for imposition of penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d unabsorbed depreciation running into crores in the case of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), thus, cancelled the penalty relying on the following decisions :- 1) Laxmi Vilas Bank , 303 ITR 428 (Mad). 2) CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products, 322 ITR 158 ( S. C.) 4. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative reiterated the submission made before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee was incurring heavy losses, since the last more than 20 years and carried forward losses are being left beyond eight years since last many years. The assessee had inadvertently left to add back the provisions of doubtful debts. Even he relied on the decision of the Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 ( S.C.) wherein it was categorically held that in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been withdrawn once it has been brought to the knowledge of the assessee by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Harparshad and Company Ltd, (2010)328 ITR 53(Del) 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same alongwith the orders of the tax authorities below. We have also gone through the case laws as have been relied on before us. The provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under :- "271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals)] or the Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he may levy the penalty on the assessee. Thus, there are two different charges i.e. the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty can be imposed for a specific charge. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars means when the assessee has not disclosed the particulars correctly or the particulars disclosed by the assessee are incorrect. Concealment of particulars of income means when the assessee has concealed the income and has not shown the income in its return or in its books of accounts. 8. Explanation (1) is a deeming provision and it is applicable when an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his is not denied that the particulars of provisions of doubtful debts have duly been shown by the assessee and debited in the audited profit and loss account. It is also not denied that the assessee has submitted the explanation in reply to show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Even though the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, failed to discharge his onus as he was not sure at the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for which specific charge penalty has been initiated by the Assessing Officer. Even while levying the penalty also, the Assessing Officer simply relied on the explanation to Section 271(1)(c) even though he levied the penalty for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. This is apparent from the provisions....