AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing ground of appeal: - "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, it is humbly prayed that it should be held that the penalty levied vide Order dated 12th September, 2013 u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act in relation to disallowance of Rs. 23,97,944/- representing part of interest expenditure considered as attributable on the outstanding balance due from Chitralekha Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd., in assessment of the income vide Order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11th March, 2013 is to be deleted." 1.2 However, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal on 13/03/2019 which contest the imposition of penalty on legal grounds in the following manner: - on the facts and circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the cited judicial pronouncements. 1.4 Since the legal issues being raised by the assessee contest the validity of order passed by Ld. AO and goes to the root of the matter, we take up the same first. 2.1 Facts leading to the imposition of the impugned penalty are that the assessee being resident firm engaged in the business of publishing magazines was assessed u/s 143(3) on 11/03/2013 wherein the assessee was saddled with interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 23.97 Lacs. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee in the quantum assessment order and the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty of Rs. 7.40 Lacs vide order dated 12/09/2013. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Brothers Vs. Union of India [1970 77 ITR 107]. 4.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. The undisputed position that emerges is that the penalty was initiated by Ld. AO against quantum addition in the quantum assessment order, vide para 5.4, by observing as under: - Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The perusal of show-cause notice u/s 274 read with Section 271 of the Act dated 11/03/2013, as placed on page nos. 17-18 of the paper-book, reveal that the Ld. AO has failed to mark the appropriate charge as well as appropriate limb for which the penalty was being initiated. Finally, the penalty has been impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notations. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should be clear as to which of the two limbs under which penalty is imposable, has been contravened or indicate that both have been contravened while initiating penalty proceedings. It cannot be that the initiation would be only on one limb i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while imposition of penalty on the other limb i.e. concealment of income. Further, the Tribunal also noted that notice issued under Section 274 of the Act is in a standard proforma, without having striked out irrelevant clauses therein. This indicates non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while issuing the penalty notice. 4. The impugned order relied upon the following extract ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of mind." 5. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that there is no difference between furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Thus, distinction drawn by the impugned order is between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In the above view, the deletion of the penalty, is unjustified. 6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[2007] 292 ITR 11/161 Taxman 340 [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 satis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id case law: - Section 271(1)(a), read with section 297(2)(g), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For late filing of return - Assessment year 1960-61 - Whether crucial date for purposes of penalty is date of completion of assessment - Held, yes - Whether applying penalty provisions contained in Act of 1961 to cases of persons whose assessments are completed after 1-4-1962, it cannot be said that any class has been singled out for special treatment and, hence, section 297(2)(g) cannot be struck down as discriminatory under article 14 of Constitution - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee would be liable to a penalty as provided by section 271(1) for default mentioned in section 28(1) of Act of 1922, if his case falls within....