TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the order dated 17.03.2020 of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 1081500 u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. 2. That the very initiation of the proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) was improper. (i) as there was no proposal for such action in the order u/s 154 which had become the final order for assessment purposes. (ii) as the show cause notice served was in a routine printed form without specifying as to the exact reason i.e. whether for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for which action u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated. 3. That the proceedings have been in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that assessee has claimed deduction for payment made to the 'School of Human Genetics and Population Health' u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, in order to verification of payment made by the assessee issued commission u/s 131 of the Act to the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. In the report filed by the Investigation Wing of the Kolkata, it was found that the 'School of Human Genetics and Population Health' was engaged in issuing certificate u/s 35(1)(ii) for claim of deduction and amount was being returned back in cash to the donors. The said School of Human Genetics and Population Health admitted during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act that they had provided accommodation in terms of bogu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessing Officer after due inquiry from the person who has issued certificate u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and said inquiry was duly confronted to the assessee. The assessee has failed to rebut the finding of the Assessing Officer and even preferred to withdraw appeal on the quantum of disallowance. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under : "4.1 I have carefully considered the grounds raised, written submissions made assessment order, order u/s 154 and the penalty order passed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer based his findings on Survey action where bogus donation racket was unearthed and statements given to the Investigation wing that the institute provided accommodation entries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awn by the assessee and thereby the assessment order was confirmed. 4.3 The appellant has claimed that as it had furnished full details of the payment, produced the receipts of Rs. 20 lakhs, letter of confirmation regarding receipts of donation so its case was not that of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It has relied on various case laws in support of its stand. It also claimed that as it had suo motto sought rectification thereby increasing its assessed income by Rs. 20 lakhs and also that the resultant rectification order passed us 154 did not specity the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c), thus the penalty is invalid. 4.4 It is observed that during survey on SHGPH by Kolkata Investigation Dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from record to the tune of 20Lakhs (on account of donation to SHGPH being Rs. 35 lakh not 15 lakh) was brought to the knowledge of the AO with the plea that as it had voluntary agreed to the addition and had also withdrawn the appeal before the CIT(A) against the addition, penalty may not be levied. This was not a bona fide disclosure, but an attempt to escape the penalty as the appellant requested the A not to levy penalty as it had voluntarily agreed to the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs. Penalty is to be levied in case of concealment or inaccurate particulars being furnished and not as a bargain for agreeing to an addition. Even if assessee agreed to addition with a condition that penalty could not be imposed, department is not precluded from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oposes to impose penalty and that this would lead to an inference as to non-application of mind thus vitiating the imposition of penalty. It is very important to state here that in the response dated 16.08.2016 to the show cause notice the appellant has itself relied that there was "no act of furnishing inaccurate particulars" which shows that there was no doubt in the mind of the appellant that the penalty was to be levied on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially also because in the assessment order itself the AO had discussed regarding the inaccurate particulars that attracted the initiation of penalty. In the assessment order itself - in the body of the order also the discussion was on furnishing inaccurate particulars....