TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness of Builders and Developers. Assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,25,03,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.15.02.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,75,02,336/- inter-alia by making additions of Rs. 49,98,490/- on account of routing the entries of receipts to the capital account instead through Profit and Loss account and Rs. 846/- on account of interest on TDS. On the aforesaid additions, AO vide order dt. 30.08.2016 levied penalty of Rs. 15,44,530/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld as ,stock in trade by the assessee] transferred / introduced by the assessee individual as his capital in a partnership firm during the year was wrongly credited by the assessee to his 'capital a/c' instead of crediting it to the P&1. A/c and thereby the profit for the year was understated by Rs. 49,98,490/- which attracted levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) or the Act. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the said income or Rs. 49,98,490/- was offered by the assessee as his income only after the said income was detected by the A.O. in the course of asst. proceedings and thus, the bonafides of the assessee were not established and hence, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were attracted in the case of the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e income was offered only after detection by the A.O. without taking cognizance or controverting the details filed by the assessee and hence, the levy of penalty was not justified . b. The assessee had declared huge returned income of more than Rs. 1.25 Crs. and the books of accounts were also audited by a duly qualified chartered accountant who also failed to notice the above mistake and in view of the above facts, there was no reason for the assessee to purposely conceal the above income by disclosing all the relevant facts in the balance sheet and thus, the levy of penalty was not justified on facts of the case." 3. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that while pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncealment of income. Even in the penalty order dated 30.08.2016 AO holds that the case of the assessee falls under the ambit of Explanation (1) to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, where it is deemed about the particulars of income been concealed. Even in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), the AO has not struck the relevant portion of the from to indicate as to whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We thus find that no clear cut satisfaction has been recorded by AO as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We find similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Goa Coastal Resorts &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09116 (at page 33) is perused, it is apparent that the relevant portions have not been struck off. This coupled with the fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order are quite consistent by the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. The contention based upon MAK Data (P) Ltd. (supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itsel....