2015 (12) TMI 1794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. That the penalty order deserves to quashed because the charge is not precise. 3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the ld. Assessing Officer's action of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is fully justified." 2. The assessee had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,72,270/- on 31/03/2008. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment the ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited certain cash on various dates. The case was adjourned several times during the assessment proceedings. On 17/12/2009 the assessee appeared and stated that the cash deposited is out of sale proceeds of jewellery a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty proceedings does not specify as to under which limb the notice has been issued. It is also noted that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has not initiated the penalty under any particular charge. In the case of CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal reported in (2009) 9 SCC 589 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a similar situation. It has been observed by the Hon'ble SC that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income is essential before levying any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act....