2020 (5) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e AO did not specified whether the penalty is for concealment or of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The assessee company received money through cheques which were accounted in banks account of the company. Nature and source of deposits with the company stood proved on the facts of the case. The source of deposits was proved and substantiated, thus there is no concealment of income by the assessee. 4. That on the facts and in law penalty proceedings are distinct and separate from assessment proceedings. There is no infirmity hence there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 5. In the order there is no direction u/s. 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty. Thus levy of penalty is illegal and void. 3. At th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sted that the penalty in dispute may be cancelled and appeal of the assessee may be allowed accordingly. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karanataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC). i) ITO vs. Rajan Kalimuthu (ITA no. 2900/CHNY/2018) (TS-289-ITAT-2019(CHNY) : ITAT: AO's failure to strike - off column in SCN, no ground for deleting penalty. ii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment order, I find that AO did not record his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings, because while passing the assessment order dated 28.03.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, the AO has stated that ".....Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) has been issued separately for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income...", which is not sufficient and therefore, the penalty proceedings cannot be said to be validly initiated under such circumstances. However, nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, in the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 196....