TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the original assessment in the case of the assessee came to be completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 13.12.2017, wherein, two additions have been made being one addition of Rs. 1,04,912/- representing the amount received from Hindustan Uniliver Ltd., and second addition of Rs. 97,961/- representing the estimated disallowance of expenses in the profit and loss account. It was the submission that consequent to the said additions, penalty proceedings has been initiated and levied u/s. 271(1)(c) by an order dated 22.6.2018. It was the further submission that the show cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was being levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR drew my attention to page 6 para 5.3 of the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the assessee has sold immovable property situated at Jeypore and no gains had been disclosed in the assessee's return. It was the submission that there is clear concealment of income by the assessee and the penalty is liable to be levied and has been rightly confirmed by the ld CIT(A). It was the further submission that the reference made by the ld AO is the interpretation of the submission made by the assessee, which has been extracted by the Assessing Officer in his penalty order. It was the submission th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee. This being so, on this ground itself, the penalty as levied in respect of addition of Rs. 1,04,912/- is liable to be cancelled and I do so. 7. Further coming to the arguments of ld Sr DR that there has been concealment in respect of immovable property sold at Jeypore, it must be mentioned that there is no mention of such an addition in the assessment order. Next, coming to the submission of ld AR that show cause notice it has not been struck off, the relevant portion, whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has consistently been holding as follows: "1. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para 16 of the decision of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka), which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows, reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 243 (SC). It is also noticed that this principle had also been applied by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bishandayal Jewelers (supra) and in the case of S.M.Enterprises (supra). This being so, respectfully following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the principle of consistency, as it is noticed that in the show cause notice the AO has not struck off the inappropriate clauses, the penalty as levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in the present appeals of both the assessees stand deleted. 2. S....