2019 (7) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act has not specified whether the same has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and therefore same is bad in law. 2. The ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 15,38,496/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO only on the ground that the additions have been confirmed by CIT(A) and on the basis of conclusions drawn in the assessments proceedings without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant and without proving it to be false. 3. The ld CIT (A) while confirming the levy of penalty erred in stating that the appellant had declared additional income to explain the investment in flat, source of investment rem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer initiated the penalty proceeding stating that "Penal proceedings are therefore initiated u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books of account audited." (para 2.2 of the assessment order). 4. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer clearly stated that the levy of penalty is for the default of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealing income, ......" (page 4 of the penalty order). 5. The CIT(A), relying on the various judgements of the High Court, confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 5.3 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2014. On perusal of penalty order, we find the following is the reasons for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act :- "....... furnishing inaccurate particular of income/concealing income......" 11. The above extracts reveal that the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind while recording the satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the sati....