TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 7,27,980/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 66,50,460/- after making various disallowance/additions to the income. The matter was taken in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal wherein the Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 27.10.2016 has allowed part relief to the assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty amounting to Rs. 11,00,844/- vide his order dated 29.06.2017. Against the said order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty on certain issues and sustained the levy of penalty on three issues namely disallowance of discount claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 18,05,716/-, the disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cify explicitly in assessment order as well as notice u/s 271(1)(c) that for which out of the two limbs, he is initiating penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in this regard is made on decision of jurisdictional High Court in Shevata Construction Company Vs ITO, Ward 3 (4), Jaipur (Raj.) which has been followed by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in Gulam Farooq Ansari vs ITO (2018) 194 TTJ (JP) 719, Jai Ambey Associates, Jaipur vs ITO, Ward 3(1), Jaipur (ITA No. 801/JP/2016 TW (May 2018), and Prem Kumar Sanghi vs DCIT circle 2, Jaipur (ITA No. 291/JP/2018). 5. It was further submitted that the ld CIT(A) relying decision on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi 216....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of penalty is unwarranted when there is no finding in the assessment order that details supplied by the assessee were found to be false. This indicates that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.'s case (6 supra ) which has been approved in Dilip N. Shroff's case (10 supra) continues to be valid and this part of the judgment in Diiip N. Shroff's case (10 supra) has not been over ruled and continues to be good law. Moreover the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises (6 supra)was also followed by the same High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.K.Sharma(9 supra) and SLP(c) No.17591 of 2008 filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral justice. The Income Tax Officer had merely held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and not of concealment of income; which finding was arrived at also by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are enough material to show that the action on the part of the appellant may not be said to be such which would attract the penal provision under s. 271(1)(c). For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained." 7. He contended that while concluding the assessment order the officer must be clear whether it is the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate detail. He cannot have both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C-150, IPIA, Kota Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008- 09 it appears to me that you:- Have concealed the particulars of yours income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 12:30 P.M on 20.01.2011 in my office at C.R. Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota and show cause why an order imposing a penalty should not be made u/s 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through an authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made u/s 271. (Prem Prakash Meena)....