TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have quashed the penalty levied in the penalty proceedings being vitiated by vagueness, conflicting reasons and lack of application of mind? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable to the instant case? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have quashed the penalty as the provisions of section 271(1B) are not satisfied? 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have quashed the penalty as the addition arose from only a valuation exercise and the same was not challenged by the appellant to buy peace? 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come of the assessee as 'Income from other sources' within the meaning of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice dated December 8, 2016 under Section 274 read with Section 271(i)(c) of the Act was issued to initiate penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.48,01,320/- vide order dated June 30, 2017. Assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). CIT(A) confirmed Assessing Officer's order. On further appeal, the ITAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Challenging the said remand order, assessee is before this Court. 4. Shri. Chythanya, submitted that although ITAT has remanded the matter, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also this Court. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts is discernable from the assessment order. Therefore, the conclusion at para 63(e) in the said aouthoirty is in favour of the Revenue. 6. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Para 4 of the assessment order reads as follows: "4. As the assessee failed to disclose income under the head Income from Other Sources in the return of income filed for the asst. year 2014-15, in the manner detailed at para 3.2 above, the provisions of section 270(1)(c) are attracted in so far as the assessee has concealed true and correct particulars of its income. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 8. In the notice dated December 8, 2016, among other things, the Assessing Officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint as to whether the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 271(1) have been satisfied would be reached only after the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 67. 'Concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' are different. Both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppressio veri would amount to concealment, suggestio falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 11. A similar question arose for consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d offend principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. A combined reading of the authoritie....