TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of Refined Oil. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 01-11-2004 declaring total income of Rs. 94,42,109/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has creditors to the tune of Rs. 20,51,06,603/-. The total number of creditors shown by the assessee was 315. The Assessing Officer after deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was found that the assessee company has shown creditors to the extent of Rs. 27 crores as on 31-03-2014. On detailed investigation it transpired that in the normal course the assessee makes payment within 6-8 days. However, in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, there was unusual delay of 6-8 months in payment of creditors. There was long list of creditor‟s totaling to 315. The assessee could not show the genuineness of the creditors. Most of the creditors were petty to whom payments were made in 6-8 days. Detailed enquiry was made from the creditors. The creditors admitted that within 6-8 days payments were received in cash from the assessee. The ld. DR pointed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty. The ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal has made ad hoc addition in respect of unproved creditors. It is a well settled law that no penalty is to be levied in respect of estimated additions. 4.1 The ld. AR further supporting the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pointed that at the time of recording satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer has levied pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). A perusal of assessment order (para 7.7) shows that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition under reference by mentioning both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings read as under : "I therefore, hold that an amount of Rs. 18,68,90,938/- as assessee's income u/s. 69 of the Act and added to the income returned for which penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice." 10. In the present....