TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preciate that the impugned penalty is bad in law because it was initiated for both the charges and as against that it is levied for one charge as:- (a) the penalty was initiated in the Assessment Order for both the charges namely for concealing the income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars and while issuing the Notice dated 29th April 2016 also both the charges were mentioned along with explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. There was no mention of explanation 7; (b) in the second Notice issued on 14th October 2016 also both the charges were mentioned but there was no reference to any of the explanation; (c) however, while imposing penalty vide Order 28th October 2016, the basis of levy of penalty is only for furnishing inaccurate particulars; 3. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. (IT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in upholding the penalty as during the course of penalty proceedings the assessee had furnished the explanation which has not been found to be false and, therefore, Explanation 1 to section 271(1) was not applicable and the impugned addition could not be deemed to represent the income in respect of whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Undisputedly, transfer pricing analysis was carried out by the ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act who has determined the arm's length price qua international transactions carried out by the assessee with its AE to the tune of Rs. 74,41,060/- which has been added to the taxable income of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that arm's length price has been determined by the TPO by rejecting the TP analysis carried out by the assessee who has computed the margin of comparables at 10.67% vis-à-vis the margin computed by the TPO at 24.59% by selecting different companies for comparability analysis. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the lower authorities and arguments addressed by the authorized representatives of both the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2), Room No.390, Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Phone : 011-23705637 F.No.DCIT/CIR-6(2)/2016-17 Dated : 14/10/2016 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(c) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. To The Principal Officer, M/s. Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Cramester E-LearningPvt. Ltd.) 312-314-315, 3rd Floor, DLF Tower A, Jasola Distt. Centre, New delhi-110 076. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" then the entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and bad in law. 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Harmeet Kaur Sran (supra) dealt with the identical issue and deleted the penalty by returning the following findings :- "13. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) while deciding the identical issue held as under :- "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) , the ....