AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, by not taking into consideration the ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-II." Similar grounds have been raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 too. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a domestic company and a member of Amar Builders group. Assessee is engaged in construction business and was covered under survey u/s.133A of the I.T. Act. Assessee filed the original return of income on 24-09-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 13,05,573/-. Assessee disclosed additional income of Rs. 3 crores on account of unaccounted receipts from the flat owners. Although, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) are relevant. In these cases, the penalty was deleted on the factual matrix as in the case of the present assessee, i.e. in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, assessee filed the revised return of income offering the additional income, which is higher than the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the said order of CIT(A), i.e. the deletion of penalty in both assessment years, the Revenue is in appeals before us for both the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the order of the CIT(A) is required to be reversed and relied heavily on the discussion given by the AO in the penalty as well as assessment orders. 7. Per Contra, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused the orders of the Revenue authorities. We have also considered the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR for the assessee. After going through the assessment order and the penalty orders, we find it relevant to extract Para No.3 of the assessment order and Para 10 of the penalty order and the same read as under : "03. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Since the return income included undisclosed income of Rs. 300 lacs, hence assessee is liable for penal proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c). Accordingly penal proceedings is being initiated." From the above, it is evident that it is the case of not mentioning any of the limbs specified in clause (c) of the said section 271(1) of the Act. 10. Further, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra 6.3 of his order has rightly relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Narasimha Prasad reported in 250 ITR 852 (Kar.). CIT(A) after considering the facts of the present case has rightly held that the AO has not exercised his discretion his decision judicially and eventually deleted the penalty levied by the AO. Further, no adverse judicial pronouncements have been filed before us which would warrant us taking a different view and in favour of the Revenue. 13. For the sake of completeness of this order, we proceed to extract Para No.6.3 of the CIT(A) and the same reads as under : "6.3 I have given careful consideration to the facts before me and to the arguments and contentions put forward ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase since the same was initiated in the course of 143(3) proceedings whereas assessment proceedings in his case should have actually been concluded under section 153C & not under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 in view of the non-obstinate clause in S.153C. However, I do not wish to go into this legal issue as the appellant has already accepted the assessment order and is not in appeal against it. The Hon. Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa held that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and after consideration of all relevant circumstances. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act dt.19-03-2013 : "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 2009-10, it appears to me that you : have concealed the particulars of your income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. . . ." (4) Extract from notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dt.23-08-2013 : ""Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Yrs. 2009- 10 to 2011-12, it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. . . ." 8. From the above 4 extracts, the AO is found to have used "or" at one place, "and" at other place and "concealed the particulars of your income" at one place and "furnished inaccurate par....