2018 (5) TMI 1924

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;    Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the A.O on the basis of the AIR information gathered that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,41,800/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to submit the details of the aforesaid property. The assessee furnished with the A.O the assignment deed dated 29.12.2007, as per which the assignor had assigned 11.666% of his undivided share in land known as Mohammad Ali Usman Ali compound at Chembur in favour of Shri Amrik Singh A. Alag, Shri Amit S. Makan and Shri Gagandeep Singh Alag, each having a share of 40%, 30% and 30%, respectively. The aggregate price paid was Rs. 15,30,100/- (including....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e culmination of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the A.O to show cause as to why penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) may not be imposed on him. The A.O not finding favour with the explanation of the assessee imposed a penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,06,570/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO under Sec.271(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal.  5.            The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee had assailed before us the validity of the penalty imposed under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find from a perusal of the assessment order that as observed by the A.O, the deed for assignment on the basis of which the assessee had acquired 30% share in the property was dated 29.12.2007. We thus, are of the considered view that now when the assignment deed itself pertains to the period relevant to A.Y 2008-09, hence by no means penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the impugned addition of Rs. 4,59,000/- made under Sec. 56(2)(vi) could have been imposed on the assessee in A.Y 2009-10. We find that as the assessee had not assailed the order passed by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal, thus the same had attained finality. Be that as it may, not b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uded that the two expressions namely 'Concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate of particulars' of income have different connotation. We further find that the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT  Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 241)(Kar), following its earlier order in the case of CIT  Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar), had held that where the notice issued by the A.O under Sec. 274 r.w Sec. 271(1)(c) does not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) for which the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e whether for 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars', the same had to held as bad in law. The 'Special Leave Petition....