TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for various years as levied as well as confirmed by lower authorities. 2. Since the grievance of revenue in all the applications is common, we take up MA No.385/Mum/2019 which is with respect to assessee namely Best group of companies for AY 2008-09. In the application, it has been submitted that the case has been decided in assessee's favor on legal issue since it was observed that Ld. AO initiated penalty for concealment of income, by taking support from Explanation-3 to Section 271(1)(c). However, Ld. AO levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it was concluded that penalty was initiated on one limb but ultimately levied on another limb and therefore, the impugned order w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of assessment proceedings and in penalty order concealment word has been explicitly mentioned in the preceding paras of the order as well as in the calculation done for levying the penalty. (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has not appreciated the facts that the question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and in the instant case the assessee has not offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (d) It is humbly requested that the order of ITAT may be recalled and that of the Ld. CIT(A) order may be restored....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inding judicial pronouncements. 3.2 The para-12 of the order deal with penalty levied on income disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. It was noted that Ld. AO has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income but levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, a conclusion was drawn that penalty was initiated on one limb but ultimately levied on another limb. In para-13, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in Shri Samson Perinchery was considered and the ratio of that case law was noted. Finally, in view of contradictory approach adopted by Ld.AO, the impugned order was set aside and penalty was directed to be deleted. 3.3 The paras-15 & 16 of the order deals with pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay High Court in CIT V/s Earnest Exports Ltd. (323 ITR 577) wherein it was observed that power u/s 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistake apparent on record and Section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. Further Sec. 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection. These provisions empower the Tribunal to correct the mistakes, errors and omissions apparent on the face and the said provision is not an avenue to revive a proceeding by recourse to a distinguished argument nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on merits. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana....