TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is with regard to the action of the CIT(A) in sustaining penalty of Rs. 69,95,271/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Builder and Developer and civil construction. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at various premises of Siddhi Group of cases, to which the assessee also belongs, on 19/02/2009. During the course of search and survey action under section 133A of the Act carried out simultaneously at different premises belonging to the group, various incriminating documents and records were foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30/12/2010 assessing the total income at Rs. 3,05,87,120/-, thereby making an addition Rs. 50,74,500/- to the income returned in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. The variation in the returned income was also on account of determining the amount unaccounted cash receipts in respect of the units sold in the building "Ellora". Subsequently, vide order dated 29/06/2011 passed under section under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the Assessing Officer held the assessee guilty of concealment of income and penalty equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs. 2,05,74,500/- has been levied, which came to Rs. 69,93,271/-. The Assessing Officer also observed that the case of the assessee for levy of penalty was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontend such a notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is invalid. So far as the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act is concerned, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the instant assessment year section 271AA of the Act is inapplicable since the date of search is 19/02/2009. 5. On the aforesaid preliminary aspect, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that in the present case the Assessing Officer initiated penalty for concealment of the particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and he has referred to the observations of the Assessing Officer in para-9 of the assessment order in this regard. The Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actually speaking, it is clearly emerging that the notice has been issued in a standard proforma and the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off. Notably, the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer to another feature of the present case, which also demonstrates the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. As pointed out by the Ld. Representative for the assessee, in the present case, on 30/12/2010 Assessing Officer issued two notices namely, one under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act; and, second under section 274 r.w.s 271AAA of the Act. Section 271AAA of the Act is a specific provision dealing with levy of penalty in cases where search under section 132 of the Act has been initiated after a specified date. One of the qualifying conditions of section 271AAA of the Act is that it applies to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation below sub-section(4) of section 271AAA of t....