2023 (4) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 38,669/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: - The assessee an individual filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,25,430/-. The assessment was reopened and reassessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act assessing the total income at Rs. 10,75,430/-. The AO made the disallowance u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- pertaining to claim of expenses relatable to purchases made. 4. Pursuant to the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order u/s. 27....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by striking off the printed portion of the notice " have concealed the particulars of income" in the show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 and imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) for "concealing the particulars of such income" is bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and In law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsidered by the CIT NFAC, and dismissed the appeal on 30-06- 2022.1n view of this, . the order of the CIT NFAC is invalid. 10. Any other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing may also be considered. 7. The ld. AR submitted that penalty has been initiated for "furnishing inaccurate particulars" by the issue of show-cause notice date 30.12.2019, whereas the penalty has been imposed for "concealing particulars of such income". It was submitted the change in the ground on the basis of which the penalty has been initially initiated and later imposed has violated principles of natural justice. It was submitted that penalty provision have to be strictly construed. In this context, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore us the decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 and K.M.Bhatia (Quarry) v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 379, in which the ratio of the decision of this court in Lakhadir Lalji's case [1972] 85 ITR 77, was reiterated. There can obviously be no dispute about a proposition that if the very basis for the penalty proceedings against the assessee initiated by the Income-tax Officer disappeared, then the penalty imposed on a different footing altogether cannot be sustained." 10. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 has held the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is imposed and when the position being unclear, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng penalty would 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. 61. The Assessing Officer is empowered under the A....