TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med by the learned CIT(A). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has concealed its income to the extent of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- willfully and knowingly by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, he levied penalty of Rs. 74,12,046/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing as under:- "7.1. Non filing of complete details/information amounts to suppression of material facts. Order of CIT(A) reflects facts which are different from the statement of facts filed by the appellant. Finding of facts by CIT(A) has not yet been reversed by ITAT. The case laws relied upon by the appellant, do not hold that penalty is not leviable even when there is suppression of material facts. Therefore, the addition made falls under the definition of deemed concealment under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 1961. Therefore, the penalty levied is confirmed." 4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot clear as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty has been initiated i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Referring to the copy of the assessment order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer is silent on particular limb of default attributable to the assessee. The order doesn't indicate any specific default of sec 271(1)(c) attributed to the assessee although there is general satisfaction of initiation of penalty proceedings in para 3.1 thereof. Referring to the copy to penalty order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer while levying penalty records satisfaction that the assessee knowingly and willfully by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealed its income. He submitted that from the satisfaction in penalty order, there cannot be any dispute that the assessee is in default for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and no default for concealing the particulars of income is attributable to the assessee, although, the Assessing Officer finds that this default has resulted into concealment of income. He submitted that invoking of the Explanation of section 271(1)(c) across the board further show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e post amendment. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that where it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are intiated separately, it is held that the same doesn't comply with the word 'direction' as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty has been levied for concealment of particulars of income of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- for which addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act. Referring to para-3 of the assessment order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer simply relies on the finding given in the assessment order for AY 2008-09. This shows that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry to verify the evidences furnished by the assessee in support of the cash credit of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- for this year. Thus, the addition is not based on the rejection of the evidences furnished after due enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, such addition is not tenable in law in view of the following decisions:- i. CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt Ltd. ITA 212/2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find that the Assessing Officer in the instant case levied penalty of Rs. 74,12,046/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on the ground that the assessee has concealed its income to the tune of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- willingly and knowingly by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that the learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer, reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that since the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been struck of, therefore, it is not clear as to under which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 issued by the Assessing Officer shows that the Assessing Officer has simply put a tick mark against "have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of Explanation 1,2,3....