TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are as under:- 2.1 For the asst. year 2007-08, the order of asst. was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24/12/2009 determining the assessee's income at Rs. 1,14,93,587/- wherein the Assessing Officer ('AO') simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issue of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act of even date. Subsequently, the AO passed an order dated 29/6/2010 imposing penalty of Rs. 38,12,640/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-III, Bangalore vide order dated 2/3/2012 dismissed the assessee's appeal and thereby upheld the levy of penalty by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 38,12,640/-. On further appeal by the assessee, a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal was filed, were identical to that of asst, year 2006-07. However, after the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case for asst. year 2006-07 dated 21/9/2016, the assessee then chose to file M.P No.24/Bang/2017 for asst. year 2007- 08. The Tribunal vide order dated 21/6/2017 dismissed the assessee's M.P for asst. year 2007-08 as not maintainable; being barred by limitation, as it is filed beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 254(2) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter for asst. year 2007-08 in writ petition No.25553/2018 (T.IT) before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12/6/2018 allowed the assessee's Writ Petition, quashed the Tribunal's order in M.P No.24/Bang/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. whether the notice is issued for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; is invalid and the consequential penalty proceedings/order are also not valid. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'b!e Karnataka High Court (Supra) at paras 59 to 61 are extracted hereunder:- "59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various ground set out therein, if the order passed by the Authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated, in the notice to be issued under Section 274, they could conveniently refer to the said order which contains the satisfactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articulars 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 overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pal reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of M4NU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO IvL4RKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the action being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer propos....