TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Authority of Rs. 98,996/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi has further erred by not appraising himself about the whole facts of the case before confirming the penalty imposed by AO of Rs. 98,996/-. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred by approving the action of the AO. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a Return showing income of Rs. 1,23,83,470/- was filed on 21.7.2011. The assessee derives income from house property and other sources. In this case assessment was completed vide order dated 03.2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....number of withdrawals for personal / other purposes was more than the withdrawals for earning income from other sources. The other facts related to rental income of the assessee were considered. The amount of interest was disallowed as deduction u/s. 57 of the Act comes to Rs. 3,20,377/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,20,377/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee under the 'income from other sources.' Accordingly, notice u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 3.2.2014 and in response to the same assessee furnished its reply dated 10.2.2014 and after considering the same, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by observing that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount added for which inaccurate particulars has been furnished. In view of the above, he stated that entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law and in order to support his contention, he placed the reliance on the following decisions:- - Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - Apex Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016. In view of above, he requested that the penalty in dispute may be cancelled and appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and also filed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....catory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 5. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber Co [91 ITR 467] CIT vs India Seafood [105 ITR 708] where Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income 6. Steel Ingots Ltd vs. CIT [296 ITR 228] where Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in case of concealment of true income chargeable. to tax by making bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified 7. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we ar....