TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time of passing of order levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind in invoking correct limb under which penalty is to be levied. The ld. AR submitted that in additional ground No. 1 the assessee has challenged validity of reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3). However, ground No. 1 raised in additional ground of appeal is not pressed. 2.1 The ld. AR submitted that in assessment year 2005-06 the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. While issuing notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer has mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR referred to notice dated 29-10-2012 at page 13 of the paper book. Thereafter, at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, it is evident from record that the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty is to be levied. Satisfaction has been recorded on one charge, whereas penalty has been levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neous. The ld. AR further submitted that furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income are two different expressions having different connotations. To support his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 291 ITR 519 and T. Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 292 ITR 11. 3. On the other hand Shri Mukesh Jha representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order submitted that it is a case of deemed concealment. Therefore, both the limbs can be invoked. Claiming of excess expenditure also amounts to concealment. To support his contentions the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Prempal Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 335 ITR 23 (P & H); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha International Ltd., 212 Taxman 519. 4. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which both the sides have placed reliance in support of their respective c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cording of satisfaction on one ground and levying penalty on another would make the penalty order bad in law. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and well settled proposition of law, the impugned order confirming levy of penalty is set aside and the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed. ITA No. 357/PUN/2015 (A.Y. 2006-07) 8. In assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29-10-2012 initiated penalty for concealment of income and vide order dated 30-04-2013 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The penalty has been levied u/s. 271(1)(c) as in the original return of income the assessee had claimed certain expenditure and payment of commission subsequently, they were found to be bogus. During the course of survey the assessee admitted and offered the bogus purchases and commission, amounting to Rs. 77,45,900/- as additional income. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income in respect of bogus expenditure. According to the assessee it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not concealment of income. 9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correct or inaccurate." 10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anand Vipin Sanghavi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA Nos. 2183 to 2185/PUN/2014 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 decided on 31- 10-2017 while explaining these two expressions has observed as under : "11. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court clearly establishes that „furnishing inaccurate particulars of income‟ and „concealment of income‟ are two different charges. There should be no ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer at the time of recording satisfaction and thereafter, at the time of levying penalty with respect to the charge for levying penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer should be clear in his mind at the time of recording satisfaction the limb of clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 271 that has to be invoked. The word „concealment‟ means act of hiding something or preventing it from being known. The expression „concealment of income‟ denotes withholding or hiding information about income or investment in the books or in the return of income. Such act of c....