2015 (10) TMI 2639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in brief, as borne out from the records, are that the assessee is an individual by status. For AY 2006-07 he had filed the return u/s 139 of the Act on 28.7.2006. No notice u/s 143 (2) had been issued with reference to this return of income. Subsequently, there was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.6.2009. The bank locker No. 257 with Bank of India, Main Road, Barabanki standing in the joint name of Shri Lal Chand Agarwal, (assessee) and Smt. Tribeni Devi was subjected to a prohibitory order u/s 132 (3) of the Act and on operation of the said locker, a sum of Rs. 29,50,000/- was found to be kept therein. During the course of assessment proceedings consequent to issuance of notice u/s 153 A of the Act, inq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inted out that in the show cause notice, it has not been clearly mentioned as whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) is proposed to be imposed for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the penalty order also does not make it clear as to whether the penalty has been imposed for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He drew our attention to page 2 of the penalty order in support of his contention. He accordingly pleaded for upholding the order of Ld. CIT (A). 5. We have gone through the facts and records of the case and have duly considered the rival submissions made before us. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT reported in 292 ITR 11 (SC) has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works reported in 122 ITR 306 (Guj.) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgo Marketing Ltd. reported in 171 Taxman 156 (Delhi) have held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Mere filling up of the standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to inference as to non application of mind. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ....