TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act levied by the Assessing officer for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that penalty u/s. 271(1}{c) is leviable if AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the IT. Act that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. From the assessment orders, it is noted that the AO has recorded the satisfaction at para 4 on page 2 of the assessment order, that the assessee concealed the particulars of income. Thus, AO is specific as regards the concealment limb of the penalty in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts income at Rs. 3,61,96,710/-. Considering the fact that the company has filed the return of income by declaring the income unearthed during the course of search/post search proceedings, the company concealed particulars of income thereby attracting provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings initiated separately." 4. Thereafter, the assessing officer (A.O. for short) observed that after verification, the assessment is completed. Thereafter, the A.O. made the following additions: Total income returned Rs.3,61,96,711/- On account of expense disallowed Rs.3,69,980/- On account of profit from transaction of 45 acres of Rs.51,30,000/- On account of disallowance u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, the learned CIT-A placed reliance upon several case laws from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The learned CIT-A in a common order concluded as under: 4.15. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (referred supra) which confirms the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), 'inappropriate words' and 'paragraphs' in the standard proforma of the notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act as used by the AO were required to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011] 335 ITR 259 (Del). The Hon'ble High Court has expounded that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can only be levied if in the course of proceedings, the A.O. is satisfied that there is an concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The words ''in the course of any proceedings under this Act mean the assessment proceedings'. However, the question 'whether there is concealment or inaccurate particulars' has to be determined with reference to the returned income. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, the penalty levied with reference to income retuned is not sustainable. 11. As regards the penalty on addition of Rs. 70,20,3....