TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(1)(c) of the Act passed for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals:- "1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding order of Ld. A.O. of levy penalty of Rs. 3,77,590/- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.12.2006 showing total income of Rs. 6,91,760/- after claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act of Rs. 9,11,765/-. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am therefore satisfied that the Assessee has willfully tried to furnish in accurate particulars and thereby concealed his income with the express purpose of evasion of tax. 9. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income in respect of commission charged for providing accommodation entries. Therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, I levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) rws 274 of the Act @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded." 5. The assessee filed appeal against the penalty order before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- "There is no denying the fact that the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the particulars of income correctly. A true disclosure must be reflected in correct self computation of income and in opposing the orders if any authority has held otherwise. Thus the relevant ground of appeal is required to be dismissed. 6.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case I find no basis to interfere with the penalty order being impugned by the appellant. 7. The appeal is dismissed." 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) upholding levy of penalty u/s penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first contention of the Counsel for the assessee before us is that the ITAT in the previous years and up to A.Y. 2005-06 had allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether penalty proceedings have been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Therefore, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is well settled law that recording of satisfaction is a pre-requisite before initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and since, in the instant case, no such satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer either in the body of the assessment order or in the show cause notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) itself is bad in law. 7. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A), in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee was sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings and in absence of such satisfaction, both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal had correctly ordered to drop penalty proceedings against assessee. In the case of Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. 113 taxmann.com 630 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court held that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer in relation to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by assessee in notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. In the case of PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and R....