TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty to the extent of Rs. 1,15,875/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them." 2. There is delay in filing the appeal. In support of the delay, the assessee has filed reasons in the form of affidavit. After going through the reasons, we are satisfied that there was reasonable ground for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, the delay is condoned and appeal is being heard on merit. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that in the course of assessment U/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act, an addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- was made in respect of cash paid for covered car parking, club house, generator etc. The addition was made on the plea that Shri Bimal Kumar Jain has surrendered the said amount and offered the same for tax in the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act. The A.O. treated the said amount as undisclosed receipt by the assessee though the assessee categ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o explain your case and to show cause as to why penalty under above mentioned section of the Income Tax Act may not be levied upon you. Another printed notice dated 22-03-2016 was issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act mentioning the same lines of earlier notice i.e. Penalty proceedings under above mentioned section of the IT Act were initiated during the course of assessment proceedings in your case for the above-mentioned assessment year and statutory notice has already been issued and served upon you. Now these proceedings are to be finalized and for that purpose you are again given an opportunity to explain your case and to show cause as to why penalty under above mentioned section of the Income Tax Act may not be levied upon you. 6. It was contended by the ld AR that any notice issued under section 274, read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. In the absence of which no penalty should be levied on the assessee as determinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) and CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginnign Factory & others [2013] 359 ITR 565. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) after referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai (Supra) held as under: - ".......... Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lower authorities. 13. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by the lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by the ld. AR and ld. DR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case. From the record we found that in the quantum order, the A.O. did not initiate penalty in respect of addition of Rs. 3.75 lacs however, penalty was initiated for disallowance of the deduction claimed U/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The addition made by the A.O. by disallowing the deduction claimed U/s 80IB(10) of the Act, was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) and further confirmed by the ITAT as well as the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the department. From the record we found that the penalty order was passed by the A.O. on 31.03.2016, wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on addition of income of Rs. 3,75,000/- on account of alleged cash amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- received from one Sh Bimal Kumar Jain by holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed....