TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty when show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(l)(c) of the Act did not specify the exact charge as to whether the penalty is levied for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Such a defect renders the penalty void ab initio and is also a violation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried on by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice under section 148 of the Act on account of income escaping assessment. The assessee in response to such show cause notice declared an income of Rs. 6,84,617/- which was accepted by the AO in the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act vide order dated 29th September 2017. 4.1 The AO, in the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the reasoning that above income was declared by the assessee only upon initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act on account of escapement of income. Had the proceedings not been initiated upon the assessee, income of the assessee would have gone without tax. The AO al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by the different courts, penalty of concealment cannot be imposed because the assesses has taken a particular stand or had preferred an interpretation which was plausible and reasonable, but has not been accepted, unless the assessee had not disclosed facts before the authorities. Such cases have to be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretence and not bonafide. Similarly, the appellant can't get benefit of land mark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) ., . wherein in the last para of judgment it has been stated, ........... wherein there is no findings by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or willful conduct, held by Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla 131 ITR 680 (All.). Concealment means en attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income tax authorities, held in case of CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 (Jhar). The A.O. has initiated penalty perfectly as per provisions of the IT. Act, 1961 and has only imposed penalty of 100% of amount payable on concealed income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. It is not the case where appeiiani made certain ciaims in the return of income which were found to be not allowable subsequently during assessment proceedings, rather it is a case where additions have been made on certain facts which cam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars of income. The relevant extract of the penalty order is reproduced as under: "furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thereby concealed income of Rs. 5,04,620.00" 9.1 On perusal of above, it is clear that the AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding under which head the penalty w....