TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in not specifying the charge against the assessee for which the penalty has been levied against the assessee. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 4. That in view of the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, the AO has erred on facts and in law in imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,85,597/- u/s 271(1) (c) vide order dt. 25.06.2012. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 5. That the AO has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in levying penalty on the grounds that there was a disallowance of depreciation and maintenance charges claimed by the assessee in its P&L A/c. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 6. That the impugned order is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by various judicial pronouncements. 7. That the AO has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred in law and on facts and has failed to appreciate that the explanation filed by the assessee is bonafide. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 8. The information filed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted. The penalty levied by As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Assessing Officer inter alia on following grounds. - that the return was signed by the assessee and no person would sign the return without reading and understanding. - that the mistake committed by the accountant was a self-serving story as no such explanation was given during assessment proceeding 2.1 The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to offer any bonafide explanation and, therefore, he levied penalty amounting to Rs. 4,85,597/-equivalent to 100 % of the tax sought to be evaded. 2.2 Before the Ld. CIT-(A) the assessee raised various grounds and filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT-(A) rejected the submission of the assessee relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: "4. I have gone through the appellant's submission, facts and evidences available on records and have also perused the penalty order and considered the decision relied upon by the appellant and AO. 4.1 With regard to the appellant's contention that AO's order is not valid on the ground as it does not mention whether the penalty levied was on account of concealment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for the first time in the year under consideration. Had it been declared for the first time even that one can accept the appellant's claim that it is a case of bonafide mistake, but than is not a case here? Further, "Bonafides" have to be shown and it cannot be "assumed" as has been done in the present case, simply by stating that because of the mistake on the part of the accountant a patently wrong claim of depreciation and expenses on repairs was taken. 4.5 Therefore in my view, in the facts of the present case, the penalty Under section 271(l)(c) for concealing the particulars and for furnishing the inaccurate particulars is leviable. In coming to this conclusion, I rely on the recent decision of Delhi High Court dated 29.07.2013 in the case of CIT vs. HCIL Kalindee Arsspl, where on somewhat similar issue, where the assessee took the plea that for claiming the deduction under section 80IA, they referred to the certificate issued by a CA, but still in that case the Hon'ble Court held that the assessee was not able to establish the "bonafide" of his claim.] 4.6 It is not out of place to mention here that in the present case had the appellant's case not been ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sole issue involved is levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,85,597/-. 4. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that in the impugned penalty order, the Assessing Officer has not specified the charges whether the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income. The Ld. counsel also submitted that in the notice under section 274 of the Act also charges were not specified. The learned counsel filed a compilation of case laws and submitted that the penalty need to be cancelled relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka). He mentioned that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said decision was also dismissed as reported in CIT Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows, 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). The Ld. counsel also placed his reliance on following decision of the Tribunal: 1. Vijay Kumar Arora Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 843/Del/2014 dated 05/05/2017; 2. M/s MG Contactors....