TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before Tribunal expired on 02/06/2017 and therefore, no director was available to sign the appeal documents. In support, an affidavit of the director of the assessee company affirming the above facts has been placed on record. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay. Keeping in view the principle of natural justice and ratio of decision of Honorable Supreme Court rendered in Hon'ble Apex Court in 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, the bench formed an opinion that the delay was to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on merits. 3. Facts leading to the imposition of penalty are that the assessee has been assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 26/02/2015 wherein the assessee was, inter-alia, saddled with following quantum additions: - No. Head of Addition Amount (Rs.) 1. Provision for Annual Leave & PF contribution 24,62,586/- 2. Provision for Doubtful Debts 52,12,993/- The amount of Rs. 24,62,586/- was disallowed, the same being contingent liability. The second addition has been made since the assessee could not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the debts became bad during the year. Accordingly, penalty pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee [AR] assailed the penalty proceedings on legal grounds by drawing our attention to the following judicial pronouncements. No. Case Law Judicial Authority Citation 1. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Hon'ble Karnataka High Court 359 ITR 565 2. CIT Vs Samson Perinchery Hon'ble Bombay High Court 392 ITR 4 3. CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows Hon'ble Karnataka High Court 72 Taxmann.com 241 SLP dismissed reported as 242 Taxman 180 4. Dilip N. Shroff Vs JCIT Hon'ble Supreme Court 291 ITR 519 5. Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal 187 TTJ 722 6. Jayant B. Patel Vs ACIT Mumbai Tribunal ITA No. 1650/Mum/2017 The Ld. DR defended the same by placing reliance on the stand of Hon'ble Supreme court rendered in Jain Brothers Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107. 6.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record and deliberated on the judicial pronouncements as cited before us. The basic facts are not under dispute. It emerges that the assessee has revised its computation of income during assessment proceedings on the basis of audited finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulars of income means, when the assessee has concealed the income and has not shown the income in its return or in its books of accounts. Explanation 1 is a deeming provision and is applicable only when an amount is added or disallowed in computation of total income which is deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 1 cannot be applied in a case where the assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the action of Ld. AO in invoking the same for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income would not stand the test of law. The facts of the present case would reveal that the penalty was initiated on the basis that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has finally been levied in terms of Explanation-1 on account of concealment of income. 6.4 Keeping in view the above findings and reasoning, we hold that the impugned penalty could not be sustained under law since Ld. AO has failed to specify that the exact charge in the show-cause notice and secondly, the penalty has been invoked for one limb but finally levied on another limb, which is not in accordance with law. 6.5 W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application 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. Therefo....