TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of recording of specific satisfaction or levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. 1.2 That the Ld CIT (A), though appreciating the fact that no specific satisfaction has been recorded by Ld. AO., in an arbitrary manner, on wholly erroneous, illegal and untenable grounds, without adhering to principles of natural justice, has upheld the impugned penalty order. 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT (A), erred in law in upholding the penalty levied on disallowance u/s 94(7) and ad-hoc disallowance, up held by the Ld. CIT (A), in the quantum appeal. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider and appreciate that on identical facts, no penalty on ad-hoc disallowances was initiated by assessing officer in earlier years. 3. That the order dated 21.09.2017 of the Ld. CIT (A) passed U/s 250(6) of the Act is bad in law. 4. That the appellant, craves, leave to add, alter, amend, forego, substitute any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We further note that in the penalty order vide para no. 10, the AO has mentioned that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is hereby imposed for concealment of income of Rs. 4,80,029/- and vide para no. 11 of the same penalty order the AO has mentioned that "...I levy a penalty of Rs. 1,48,329/- of the tax sought to be evaded on concealment / inaccurate particulars of Rs. 4,80,029/- u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12." For the sake of convenience, some of the contents of the penalty Notice dated 29.03.2013 are reproduced as under:- ".....it appears to me that you:- √* have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.05.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)c of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity to being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)c of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the Notice dated 26.3.2013 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at 11.30 AM on 26/04/2013 and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that ".....you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income...". After perusing the notice dated 26.3.2013 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as well as in the penalty order dated 30.9.2013 AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. 7.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) has given clear finding regarding the furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para no. 5.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(....