TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) and. Ld. AO have erred in finalizing an order of assessment which is against the principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of the Act, devoid of merits, without appreciating the fact involved, without appreciating the documents 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 disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(c) of the Act wherein the interest income was never a subject matter of the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment order framed under section 143(3)/144C of the Act at an income of Rs. 5,75,90,635/- by making an addition of Rs. 1,47,39,918/- on account of interest income chargeable to the taxable income of the assessee and by making addition of Rs. 3,92,86,277/- on account of royalty/fee for technical services, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO levied the penalty of Rs. 22,10,988/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Assessee ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income which is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "12. As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by not offering the receipts as FTS while filing the return of income, therefore, I consider it a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." 10. At the same time, when we examine paras 15 & 16 of the penalty order it is beyond doubt that the penalty has been levied for concealing the particulars of income for not offering the interest income to tax, whereas AO has specifically recorded his satisfaction to initiate the penalty proceedings for "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" by not offering the income as "fee for technical services" (FTS). It is beyond comprehens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10 it appears to me that you:- * Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated......... * Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2,3,4 and 5. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.45 AM/PM on 21.02.2012 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representatives you may show cause in writing on or before the said date w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 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 Li....