2017 (10) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tax Act, 1961 is against law and facts on the file as he was not justified to partly uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in restricting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 71,99,070/- (as against Rs. 81,68,916/- imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer) by granting relief of only Rs. 8,69,846/- for alleged concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position in much as no such penalty is exigible in the facts & circumstances of the case." 2. However, subsequently the assessee pleaded the following additional grounds:- " "That the order dated 29.09.2016 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Nirvana India P Ltd. Rs.1,40,00,000/- 6. Parul Gutpa Rs.12,00,000/-     Rs.2,40,00,000 4. In appeal preferred by the assessee, the assessee filed an application u/s 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on 16.03.2009 and vide order dated 18.03.2009, the Remand Report was sought and vide Remand Report dated 19.05.2009, the AO stated that pursuant to the remand proceedings, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued and in response to the same, the above persons furnished the copies of their ITRs & bank statements along with confirmation of having given the unsecured loans. AO further stated that one Ms. Parul Gupta stated that she had given loan on 13.03.2006 but the cheque was cleared only on 09.05.2006,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....68,920/- which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 hence this appeal by the assessee. 6. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, but the entire addition of Rs. 2.4 crores revolves around the acceptance or non-acceptance of the plea of the assessee and the sufficiency of the evidence produced by the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. It is further submitted by the Ld.AR that in this matter in the order vide 29.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO making the addition, AO observed that the assessee company was guilty of concealment of particulars....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....842, 236 ITR 977, 157 CTR 556]; and CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. [183 Taxman 453 (Del)/ 920100 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/ (2009) 226 CTR 105], whenever the claim made in the return of income was found to be ex-facie bogus, such a case would be treated as concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the penalty proceedings are justified. 8. We have carefully gone through the contentions of either side and perused the material papers on record. Order dated 29.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act reads that since the assessee company has concealed particulars of income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated. Further the penalty order dated 26.04.2013 vide para 3.2 says that the AO is satisfied with the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at t....