TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2018 for the A.Y 2009-10.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting To Rs. 11,124/-. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order leaving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant company was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from submission or furnishing of supporting evidence before assessment and appellant proceedings wi th respect to quantum appeals. 4. The appellant company prays that a. Penalty le vied u/s 271(1)(c) may be deleted. b. Order on appeal may be set aside. c. Recovery demand in dispute may be set aside. d. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR filed a letter stating that the assessee has challenged the quantum additions of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and prayed for the abeyance of levy of penalty till disposal of appeal. Whereas the CIT(A) vide order dated 12.12.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Subsequently the A.O issued showcase notice dated 12.02.2015 for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed submissions on 25.02.2015 explaining that the addition of Rs. 36,000/-as rental income is not justified as the property remained vacant from earlier years and rental income is not received, But, the A.O is of the opinion that the assessee has failed to file the particulars and concealed the inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry, [2013] 359 ITR 0565 (Kar) and the principles as under:- "In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. (c) Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. (d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. (m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. (n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. (o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty levied by the A.O for concealment of income is beyond the possibility of the assessee to obtain the confirmation as the tenant has already left the premises in the A.Y 2008-09 which was submitted in the penalty proceedings. The A.O cannot ask the assessee to do a impossible task considering the facts and circumstances. We relay on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) and follow the judicial precedents and We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the A.O to delete penalty and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. ITA No. 5010/Mum/2018, A.Y 2010-11. 7. The A.O has passed the Assessment order under 143(3) of the Act on 24-12-2012 with the addit....