2018 (2) TMI 1823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Income Tax Act, 1961  (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 20/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has sought to assail the imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 4,36,330/- under s.271(1)(c) on the alleged unexplained cash deposits. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 4,28,000/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of scrutiny assessment, it was inter-alia observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that as per Annual Information Report (AIR), assessee has made certain cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 31,77,775/- in SB Account with Oriental Bank of Commerce. On actual verification ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT(A) at Rs. 12,98,533/-. 6. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee seeking from penalty on unexplained cash deposits so determined. The relevant operative paras of the CIT(A)'s order are reproduced hereunder:- "6. DECISION: 6.1 The first ground of appeal pertains to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the reasons for levy of penalty whether for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income is not provided in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The same ground was taken by the appellant before the Assessing Officer also who vide para 5 of the order has disposed off the objection. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the clause 1(b) inserted by the Finan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the basis of disallowances / additions made in the order, it would have been premature to go to the specific with regard to the two ligaments of the provision as the details were not available on record due to the assessment being framed u/s. 144 of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal taken by the appellant is dismissed. 6.2. With regard to the second ground of appeal, the Authorized Representative has only placed reliance on the various case laws which are again not relevant to the facts of the case. It is a case where the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 25,60,088/- u/s. 69 of the Act which the CIT(A) restricted to Rs. 12,98,533/-. The CIT(A) vide order dated 15/10/2012 worked out the peak credit in the bank acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We straight away find that the AO vide penalty order dated 25/11/2013 under s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposed penalty on additions made alleging 'concealment of particulars of income'. However, the CIT(A), on the other hand, has confirmed the penalty on the ground of 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. Apparently, the basis and foundation for imposition of penalty has been altered by the CIT(A). It is thus ostensible that findings recorded by the CIT(A) show that penalty has been confirmed on a different premise and the original satisfaction for imposition of penalty has been altered or modified by the appellate authority. In such circumstances, where the original basis of i....