TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequently, an assessment order under section 254/143(3) of the Act was passed on 11/12/2007 computing total loss at Rs. 3,69,78,322/-against the returned loss of Rs. 1,84,91,661/-by making an addition of Rs. 17,57,73, 101/-on account of financial expenses and Rs. 9,13,560/- on account of excise duty. Learned Assessing Officer, simultaneously, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and concluded them by order dated 10/3/2014 with the levy of penalty of Rs. 67,93,848/-being the minimum penalty at hundred percent of the tax sought to be evaded. Ld. CIT(A), by order dated 5/1/2017 confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us against the levy of penalty. 4. Argument of the Ld. AR is twofold. Firstly, he submits that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof but it is only on the difference of opinion the addition was made and therefore none of the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Secondly, he submits that neither in the assessment order nor the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, the charges not mentioned with any specificity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... guidelines. Be that as it may, in the opinion of the learned Assessing Officer, in view of the pendency of the case of the assessee with BIFR, liability has become only contingent liability and the same cannot be allowed in computing the total income. 7. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee did not conceal the fact and it is only on verification of the books of accounts of the assessee the learned Assessing Officer could take a view as to the allowability or otherwise of the particular expenses. 8. In this context, we would like to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. DCM Limited (2013) 359 ITR 0101 (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that law does not bar or prohibit an assessee for making a claim, which he believes may be accepted or is plausible; that when such a claim is made during the course of regular or scrutiny assessment, liberal view is required to be taken as necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on facts and in law; that full probe and appraisal is natural and normal; that threat of penalty cannot become a gag and/or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong, whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er nor the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, there is any reference to either the concealment of income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. In the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar). Vide paragraph 60, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held as follows :- "60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natha Cotton And Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." The Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue challenging the aforesaid judgement of the High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding : "We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 14. In PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance company limited case ITA No 475/2019 and batch order dated 02/08/2019, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, upheld the view taken by the Tribunal basing on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) wherein it was held that the notice issued by the learned Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof....