2018 (10) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961 (In Short "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.9.2009 declaring income of Rs. 33,12,300/-. The assessment in this case was completed on 15.10.2010 at an income of Rs. 81,20,252/- as against the returned income of Rs. 3312330/- by making various additions i.e. (i) Rs. 7,28,066/- on account of additions under Rule 8D; (ii) Rs. 20,56,607/- on account of additions u/s. 41(1)(a); (iii) Rs. 18,47,138/- on account of additions on account of expenditure incurred on gift items and Rs. 1,76,112/- on account of additions on account of vehicle running / maintenance charges. 3. AO simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty vide his order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the penalty proceedings had been proposed and levied i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 are applicable. 7. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). Vide paragraph 60, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows:- "60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be ove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable." 8. In CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Considered the question of law as to,- "Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concea....