TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case and in law the learned CIT Appeals erred in confirming penalty levied by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 11,74,600/- and further erred in enhancing the penalty to Rs. 45,43,069/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. Reasons given by the A.O. for levying penalty of Rs. 11,74,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and also the reasons given by the CIT Appeals for enhancing the penalty levied by A.O. to Rs. 45,43,069/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income at Rs. 1,24,20,250/-. It may be pointed out that income of assessee constituted of returned income of Rs. 1.24 crores and addition on protective basis of Rs. 32,09,950/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against addition of Rs. 32,09,950/-, which was deleted by the CIT(A) as the said addition was upheld in assessment year 2004-05. The explanation of assessee during penalty proceedings was that since the addition made on protective basis has been deleted by the CIT(A), there was no merit in penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer however, held the assessee to have concealed income and furnished inaccur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned income after Survey was accepted. The protective addition made in the hands of assessee was substantially made in assessment year 2004-05, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Further, the Tribunal decided the appeal on technical grounds. Our attention was drawn to the assessment order, wherein the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings on the income of Rs. 1.24 crores by recording satisfaction on concealing the particulars of income. However, penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on addition of Rs. 32 lakhs (approx.) on both the limbs. The CIT(A) has confirmed the same. He placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in Income Tax Appeal No.1154 of 2014 with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first part of para 4 and no satisfaction has been recorded for initiating penalty proceedings against the same. However, in respect of returned income filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,20,250/-, the Assessing Officer observed that the said transaction in respect of property was required to be disclosed by the assessee in the year under consideration but the assessee failed to do the same and even did not pay any advance tax. Hence, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealing particulars of income of Rs. 1,24,20,250/-. Thereafter, directions were given to issue notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) in the quantum appeal deleted addition of Rs. 32,09,950/- and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. 14. Applying the said proposition to the facts of the case, where the assessee was show caused in respect of concealing particulars of income and thereafter, penalty was levied on account of non-satisfaction on both the limbs i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the same is against proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (supra). The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue here strongly opposed the same and pointed out that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on both the limbs of said section. We find no merit in the pl....