2020 (5) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed on same identical facts involving the same assessee. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we shall take up ITA No. 573/PUN/2019. ITA No. 573/PUN/2019, (A.Y. 2011-12) 2. This appeal filed by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The contention of Shri S.N. Puranik, the ld. AR is that the AO recorded satisfaction that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars relating to bogus purchases and initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The AO imposed penalty for concealment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only....