TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) as imposed by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as imposed by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is bad in law as the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) does not specifies as to whether penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars rendering the penalty levy void ab initio on this ground itself as per the mandate from several decisions, interalia, from High Court & Supreme Court. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) on the addition of Rs. 10,01,990 on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) of the Act was passed on 25/05/2017 on the ground that, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming penalty paid Rs. 35,169/-, sales tax demand of Rs. 5,74,769/- and Sundry Balance return of Rs. 10,01,990/- as business expenditure accordingly, computed the 100 % penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 3,21,000/-. 7. As against the penalty order dated 25/05/2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has preferred an appeal before CIT(A)-4. The CIT(A) vide order dated 01/05/2018 deleted penalty levied for disallowance of penalty amount of Rs. 35,169/- and payment of sales tax amounting to Rs. 5,74,769/-, but sustained penalty levied pertaining to miscellaneous balance written off amounting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y resulted in passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has observed as under: "A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The instant case was not the case of concealment of the income. That was not the case of the revenue either. It was an admitted position in the instant case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It was not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. [Para 9] The revenue contended that since the assesses had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they were incorrect, it amounted to concealment of income. It was argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms: (\) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (iij an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of ina....