TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, bad in law. 3. That the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is void ab initio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 67,000/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ITA No. 971/JP/2018 - A.Y. 2005-06 ''1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without striking off the irrelevant portion of the printed show cause notice dated 26-12-2011 viz. ''furnished inaccurate particulars of income'' or ''concealed particulars of such income'' is bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, bad in law. 3. That the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is void ab initio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars of such income'' is bade in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, bad in law. 3. That the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is void ab initio deserves to be quashed as no satisfaction was recorded with reference to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 2.1 Due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic condition, the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference. First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05 for adjudication as per the grounds of appeal raised hereinabove. 3.1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground No. 1 to 3. Hence, the same are dismissed being not pressed. 4.1 The Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1) (c ) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Assessing Officer has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 15,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Facts of the case-:-The Learned Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for all the assessment years pertaining to block period. The below table shows the addition made and confirmed year wise- Sr. No. Assessment year Addition made by the AO Addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) 1 2004-05 251806 241372 2 2005-06 250449 241229 3 2007-08 216786 205480 4 2008-09 179612 179612 5 2009-10 178905 172264 In the original assessment order the addition was made because certain incriminating documents were found in the form of approval memos and blank bill book of a Surat Dealer. But no specific misuse of those material was found. The learned AO under the suspicion has invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and applied the GP Rate by enhancing GP Rate made the addition @ 10% against declared GP which is around 8% in all the years. In the assessment no specific addition was made on the basis of incriminating material found. The addition wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) In view of the aforesaid facts it is a case most justified for deletion of the penalty. 3. Definite Finding about concealment is necessary - Under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there can be no question of imposing any penalty. The mere revision of the income to a higher figure by the assessing authority does not automatically warrant an inference of concealment of the expenditure on the construction. The addition to the income of the assessee based on estimate basis. Concealment implies some deliberate act on the part of the assessee in withholding the true facts from the authorities. The fact that the valuer assessed the building at a figure higher than the one reported by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adopting one of them can scarcely be viewed as malafide, with intent to evade the payment of income tax. (v) Penalty can not be levied only estimated addition and reliance is placed on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbal Khan Badruddin & Party, 240 ITR 778 (Raj.) 2. ACIT Vs. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills, 21 TW 533 (JP) 3. CIT Vs. Subhash Trading Co., 221 ITR 110 (Guj.) 4. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H) 5. ACIT Vs. Ganpat Lal Goyal, 32 TW 91 (JP) 4.9 We are also of the view that u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the authority has been given discretion to levy the penalty in case there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, it is a basic need of the provisions of law that definite finding is required to be recorded by the Revenue Officer for reaching to a conclusion with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and without any such findings, there cannot be any question of imposition of any penalty. The mere revision of income to a higher figure by the AO does not automatically warrant an inference of concealment of income by the assesse....