TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee submitted at the outset that penalty order is liable to dismissed on the legal ground of ambiguity in mentioning of charge u/s.27(1)(c) of the Act while recording satisfaction for levy of penalty. The ld. AR referred to the assessment order dated 08-01-2014 for the A.Y. 2009- 10 and pointed that penalty was initiated by the AO in respect of two additions, i.e. (1) additional income offered in return of income in response to notice u/s.153A Rs. 3,110/-; and (2) unexplained capital Rs. 2,00,000/-. The ld. AR pointed that the AO while recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of additional capital introduced has not specified the charge u/s.271(1)(c) for which penalty is to be levied. As regards addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing the appeals of assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representative of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below for the assessment years under appeal, i.e. A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee has challenged levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A on the legal issue of recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without clearly mentioning the charge. A.Y. 2009-10 : 6. A perusal of the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 shows that penalty proceedings have been initiated in respect of two additions. The first addition is Rs. 3,110/- on account of additional income declared in return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A. The AO i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (supra) approved the judgment in the case CIT & Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and held as under : "6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai V/s CIT 292 ITR 11 (relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent writ large from the assessment order. The AO while passing order levying penalty dated 23-05-2014 has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relevant extract of Para No.9 of the penalty order where the AO has mentioned the charges for levy of penalty read as under : "9. I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause, furnished an inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed her income to the extent of Rs. 3,30,793/- which comprises of addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- on a/c of undisclosed investment in FDR, Rs. 64,983/- on account of undisclosed interest receipt and Rs. 45,810/- on a/c of admittance of additional income...." 10. A perusal of the penalty order shows that AO has me....