TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circle-5(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ AO) for the A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 even dated 28.10.2016 under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalties were levied by DCIT, Circle 5(2), Mumbai of even date 26.04.2017 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The only common issue in these three appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, penalty levied by AO in a mechanical manner without pointing out under which limb the penalty is being initiated. The facts and circumstances in all the three years are exactly identical and the grounds raised are also identical except the quantum of penalty. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 43280 2,59,680 2012-13 145737 8,74,422 2013-14 110020 6,60,120 2014-15 91375 5,48,250 TOTAL 23,42,472 4. The assessee company offered undisclosed income of Rs. 2,59,680/- in the Financial Year 2011-12, relevant to AY 201213 and paid the taxes accordingly. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings vide Para 5.4 of the assessment order dated 28.10.2016 passed under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act as under: - "5.4 In light of above discussion and the findings of the search proceedings, I am satisfied that it is the fit case for initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the concealment of the particulars of income." 5. Sim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice clearly specify the charge on both the limbs. The penalty order also shows that penalty is levied for both furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income. On query, whether there was any prejudice created by not specifying the charge and whether any query was raised before the assessing officer in this regard, no specific reply was filed. It is not necessary that only one of the charge can apply to the exclusion of the other in all cases. In facts of this case scrap sales was reflected in books but partially. Thus there is both furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income." And finally levied the penalty vide Para 11 as under: - "11. In light of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticulars of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We are of the view, that the DR has admitted to demonstrate the application of mind by the AO but it is no difference in as much as that the AO in assessment order as initiated the penalty proceedings for both the charges i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) wherein it is held as under: - "The impugned order of the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee. This by holding that the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act b....