TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 27-06-2013. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised following two grounds: - "Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the ACIT 21(2) of Rs. 5,41.600/- on agreed addition on account of purchases from suspicious dealers. Ground No 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y under section 271(1)(c) leviable at 100% and 300% comes to Rs. 5,41,600/- and Rs. 16,24,800/- respectively. Considering the facts of the case, I levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act @ 100% of amount of tax sought to be evades which come to Rs. 5,41,600/-." 4. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee sated that the AO is not sure about the specific charge for levy of penalty. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative relied on the order of lower authorities and stated that the issue is covered in favour of Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 taxman 549 (Bom.), wherein it is held that merely mistake in langua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ravened while initiating penalty proceedings. It cannot be that the initiation would be only on one limb i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while imposition of penalty on the other limb i.e. concealment of income. Further, the Tribunal also noted that notice issued under Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein. This indicates non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while issuing the penalty notice. 4 The impugned order relied upon the following extract of Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v/s. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 to delete the penalty: "The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....weedledum and Tweedledee. In the above view, the deletion of the penalty, is unjustified. 6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee woul....