TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirming the initiation and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the present set of facts and circumstances as neither had the appellant concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. II. The Ld. CIT (A)'s was not at all justified in confirming the imposition of penalty levied by the A.O. in a mechanical manner which was levied by him without application of mind. III. The imposition of penalty and its confirmation by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is bad-in-law because the income from other sources and rental income was inadvertently left to be included in the return of income and as soon as the appellant realized his mistake he offered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are that the assessee, an employee working with Essar Ports Ltd., Mumbai, filed his return of income on 30/7/2011 showing total income at Rs. 19,77,240/- in the status of individual. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 26,86,312/- by making additions of Rs. 6,54,282/- under the head house property and Rs. 54,790/- being interest on saving bank. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee during the penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs vide his order dated 29/4/2014. 3. Aggrieved with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Being further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to the notice dated 31/10/2013 under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act, with the submission that it is mentioned in the notice that "have concealed the particulars of your income or.......furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". The notice issued by the authority is not clear whether penalty is proposed for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, there is no specific limb under which penalty is imposed on the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arly, the assessment order dated 31/10/2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act also mentions "Penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) being issued separately" but does not record whether the penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. It is our considered opinion that the AO is empowered to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars are different. The AO, while issuing notice, has to come to the conclusion as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, the revenue must specify as to which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting an or between the two, as in the present case. This ambiguity in the show-cause notice is further compounded presently by the confused finding of the Assessing Officer that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both." 8. Taking guidance from the aforesaid judgment, we are of the considered view that when the charge is ei....