2019 (9) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er referred to as "the Act") dated 19/02/2013 relevant to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2000-01. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT( A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty Vis. 271(1)(c) ofRs. 39,7561-. The penalty needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penaltyU/s. 271(1)(c) ofRs. 39,7561- in respect of addition made on peak credit basis on which no penalty is confirm. The penalty needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty Vis. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 39,7561- on addition made on without proper verification and settled law. The penalty needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the bank cannot be treated as income and accordingly offered 5% of the turnover as provided under section 44AF of the Act. However, the AO has taken the peak credit in the bank account amounting to Rs.3,37,296.00 as unexplained income under section 69 of the Act in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19th February 2013. 3. The AO simultaneously issued notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating the penalty. However, the assessee did not make any reply to such notice issued by the AO. Therefore, the AO in the absence of any reply from the side of the assessee levied the penalty of Rs.39,756.00 being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the penalty order is reproduced as under: I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has concealed the income to the above extent. 9.1 On perusal of above, it is clear that the AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: ....