TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passing the order dated 10.09.2018 upholding the order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward - 26(3)(5), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. A.O.'] levying concealment penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and the same may be quashed. 2. Notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording any satisfaction is bad in law i. The penalty notice dated 25.03.2015 issued under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] is void ab initio as the same is not discernable whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also been denied an opportunity to cross examine the department's witness. Thus, the levy of concealment penalty on the ad-hoc disallowance of purchases treating the same as non genuine is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 4. Levy of concealment penalty on disallowance made under section 43B unjustified i. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A. O. in levying penalty on the disallowance of Rs. 2,20,055/- invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that levy of concealment penalty on the disallowance of Rs. 2,20,055/- under section 43B is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate particulars of income, nor concealed particulars of income and additions made towards alleged bogus purchases is on estimation basis and also, the addition on account of disallowances u/s 43B of the I.T.Act, 1961, it has furnished necessary evidences, including details of payment. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has deliberately concealed particulars of income, so as to evade payment of taxes. The Ld. AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby concealed particulars of income levied penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/-, which is equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai 'D' bench in the case of Madhav N. Bhatkuly vs ACIT in ITA.No.7224/Mum/2018. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in arguments advanced by the Ld. AR for the assessee, because the Ld. AO has recorded clear satisfaction, as required under law, which is evident from the fact that he has clearly mentioned in his assessment order about, limb under which the proposed penalty proceedings was initiated. The Ld.CIT(A) after appreciating proper facts has rightly confirmed penalty levied by the Ld. AO and his order should be uph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired under the law, either in assessment proceedings or at the time of issuing show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. 271(1)(c), then the whole penalty proceedings, consequent to incorrect satisfaction or for non satisfaction becomes void ab-initio Further, it is also a settled position of law that the Ld. AO has to categorically specify the limb under which, the penalty proceedings has been initiated. If penalty proceedings, is initiated for one limb and levied for different limb, then the whole penalty proceedings, becomes invalid and void ab-initio. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon'ble e Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Samson Perinchery in ITA No. 1154/Mum/2015, dated 05/12/2017. This legal proposition is fu....