2019 (7) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,13,635/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 2. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that there is a variation in the charge levied for imposition of penalty in the notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vis a vis charge levied in the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty order is invalid in view of the various decisions noted in the written submissions so filed. Accordingly, it was prayed that because of variation in the charge, penalty so imposed is liable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he must again specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. After initiating penalty on the charge of 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he cannot impose penalty by finding the assessee guilty of concealment of particulars of income'. Again, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on two or more additions/disallo....