TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall take up the appeal in ITA No.118/RPR/2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 as the lead matter and the order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for disposal of the other appeal i.e ITA No. 116/RPR/2017 for AY 2008-09. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with upward variation to Rs.3,15,850/- without affording reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed u/s. 143(3)/148 dated 26.12.2013, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.6,26,750/- after, inter alia, making the following additions/disallowances: The A.O while culminating the assessment proceedings also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 30.12.2013 was also issued by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who enhanced its income. After the order was passed by the CIT(Appeals) disposing off the quantum appeal, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that the as the A.O had failed to validly put the assessee to notice as regards the specific default for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was proposed to be imposed on it, therefore, he had invalidly assumed jurisdiction and wrongly saddled the assessee with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to support his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the copy of the "Show Cause" Notice ("SCN"), dated 30.12.2013". On a perusal of the aforesaid "SCN", the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resentative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. After deliberating at length on the aforesaid contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O had without validly putting the assessee to notice as regards the nature of default for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was proposed to be imposed on it, invalidly assumed jurisdiction and imposed penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the A.O in the 'SCN', dated 30.12.2013 that was issued a/w the assessment order had while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act fail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Courtin in its aforesaid judgments, had observed, that the two expressions, viz. 'concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' have different connotation. We are of the considered view that not only for the failure on the part of the AO to validly put the assessee bank to notice as regards the specific default for which penalty was sought to be imposed on it under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act reveals beyond doubt the invalid assumption of jurisdiction on his part; but also the fact that he had while culminating the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings for the reason that the assessee had concealed its income OR furnished inaccurate particulars....