TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of dresses, garments and bearing apparels etc. filed its return of income declaring loss at Rs. 42,79,895/-. The AO passed assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,36,710 after making addition on account of disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 42,80,234/-. Accordingly, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 14,40,727/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. In the first appeal, the Ld.CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. He also failed to appreciate that merely because the Appellant had claimed certain expenditure, which was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the impugned penalty order be quashed." 4. The assessee has challenged the impugned order inter alia on the legal ground that the impugned order is bad in law as the AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that since the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act is not clear as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cassinath Holdings (P.) Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, IT Appeal No. 2555 (Mum) of 2012, AY 2008-09. 5. The Ld. counsel further pointed out that in the assessment order AO has only proposed to issue notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of the Act, without mentioning whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the Ld. counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the assessee has participated in the proceedings, no prejudice has been caused due....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er:- "The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it as case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai [ 2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Man....