2019 (1) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1(1)(c) in respect of leave encashment expenses of Rs. 16,82,776/- added u/s.43B in the assessment order on grounds of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Leave encashment expenses were reported in Form 3CD and the failure to add back the same in computation of income was a bona-fide mistake. The appellant pleads that the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not justified. 2. The appellant pleads that his appeal be allowed and craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal." 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the imposition and confirmation of penalty of Rs. 5,71,975/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record valid satisfaction in the assessment order during which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above legal deficien....