TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 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. 13,000/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ITA No. 966/JP/2018 - A.Y. 2006-07 ''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 satisfac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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. 7,000/- 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 2005-06 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2010-11 In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 7,000/- 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 2005-06 79289 41135 2 2006-07 126930 70984 3 2007-08 105608 58723 4 2009-10 152688 84449 5 2010-11 94864+17892 47254 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 ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi):- The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presented, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) must be initiated. Section 271(1)(c) is attracted only when the assessee has concealed his income. When two opinions are possible, 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 particulars of income and also with regard to quantum of penalty. However, it is a basic need of th....