TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer (in short "the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] dated 19.03.2012. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 87,13,169/-. The assessee craves permission to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal." 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee before us is a company and had filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 3,65,41,284/- on 01-02-2007. In this case assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the I.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion did not furnish any argument in its favour that why penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income should not be levied in its case. Since the assessee did not file proper reply, therefore, the assessing officer was of the view that it is a fit case to levy penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Thus, assessing officer levied the penalty observing as follows: "Thus, there is a clear finding about the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessee has concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, hence liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I levied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch penalty may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. The main reason to levy the penalty is that during the survey operations deficit in cash of Rs. 1,19,07,027/- and excess stock of Rs. 31,63,406/- was detected by the survey party and the assessee did not furnish a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings on account of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income", vide page 3 of assessment order. 8. However, during the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings on both the limbs vide page 4 and para no. 8 of the penalty order wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned as follows: "Thus, there is a clear finding about the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessee has concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, hence liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I levied penalty under section 271(1)(c)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lear penalty is not sustainable. Further, on the identical facts, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nayan C. Shah vs. ITO [Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2012 (Guj- HC)] held. as follows: "11. Another notable aspect of the matter is that while the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that the assessee has suppressed the actual particulars of income by not making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars, whereas the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the gr....