TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts submitted in proper light, without conducting adequate inquiries and as such is without jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on interest income where in fact the Appellant had voluntarily disclosed the said income and has not concealed any facts, nor disclosed any inaccurate particulars and has in fact disclosed the nature of transaction in the statutory records of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the notice did not specify as to whether it was prompted by concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in law and on facts by levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on interest income, without any explicit satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant voluntarily disclosed the interest income and did not have any intention of conscious concealment of true particulars of income or deliberat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the income-tax; that the AO has failed to specify in the show-cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows -73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) (Revenue's SLP dismissed in 242 taxman 180) and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. in ITA 475/2019 order dated 02.08.2019. 6. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that by filing return of income beyond the prescribed period and by not showing the interest income chargeable to tax, it is a clear case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; that right from initiating penalty proceedings assessee has been specifically intimated as to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. 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 to the appeal, the sole question ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has proceeded to levy the penalty for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by not offering the interest income to tax" qua which there was no satisfaction in the assessment order. So, on ground of invalid satisfaction rather no satisfaction recorded by the AO, penalty levied on the assessee is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Furthermore, when well before issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act assessee has duly intimated the AO that due to inadvertent mistake, he could not bring the interest income to tax and sought to reduce his claim of refund to Rs. 46,67,339/- as against the earlier refund of Rs. 63,43,661/- claimed in the return of income, there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, particularly when assessee was not having opportunity of filing the revised return. 12. Moreover, AO has failed to specify in the show-cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act if assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In order to proceed further, we would like to peruse the notice dated 06.02.2012 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re for imposition of (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Tribunal, relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271 (1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, therefore, there was no substantial question of law arising for determination - Whether since there was no merit in SLP filed by revenue, same was liable to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]" 15. 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 accep....