TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2. As identical grounds are raised by the assessee in both the years, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 624/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) 3. The only identical issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that assessee is an individual woman deriving income from property, capital gains and other sources including commodity transactions. The original return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 was filed bela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om commodities. It was pleaded that the assessee had only incurred the huge losses in overall commodities transaction which is evident from the profit and loss account submitted before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the assessee being a widow, had stated that since there was only loss incurred by the assessee, she had chosen not to disclose the same in the return of income that she was not aware of the taxation laws. However, the Ld. AO observed in the quantum assessment order, that from the profit and loss account filed by the assessee, assessee had claimed travelling expenses at Rs. 3,69,789/- and other expenses of Rs. 2,50,648/- for which the details were not furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO proceeded to make an estimated dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and ultimately levied for another limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4 (Bom) had held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings/connotations and therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. The order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from house property and other sources based on the bona fide belief that the same would be eligible. Later, the assessee withdrew his claim for set off and offered other income for taxation accordingly. The said loss was disallowed duly by the Ld. AO in the quantum assessment and penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ultimately, the Ld. AO has levied penalty for both the inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income in the sum of Rs. 4,39,600/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in his penalty order which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A. 6.1. We find from the aforesaid narration of facts and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has be....