TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order is passed against the principle of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. AO by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) failed to acknowledge the fact that there was no "mens rea or guilty mind" which is a vital point in the expression "concealment" as envisaged in section 271(1)(c). The levy of penalty was uncalled for. 6. The ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO failed to acknowledge the genuinely of the appellant as return of income filed which was accepted by the ld. AO was filed voluntarily by the appellant. 7. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have objectively evaluated the merits of the case laws relied upon by the appellant. Though the facts of the case laws relied upon were different, the essence of the case for levy of penalty ought to have been considered rather than disregarding the same on face value. 8. The ld. CIT(A) disregarded the fact that the appellant had made full and true disclosure of all the details in its return of income and hence no penalty on account of such bonafide mistake on the part of the appellant was liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act on 15.04.2021 and declared income of Rs. 87,81,840/- for 2015-16 and Rs. 28,39,380/- for 2016-17 assessment year. The case of the assessee was thereafter taken up for scrutiny assessment and vide order dated 07.09.2021, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act accepting the return filed by the assessee in response to 153C notice for both the years. Since the income offered in the return of income was pursuant to the search proceeding, a penalty notice was issued to the Assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing 'inaccurate particulars of income'. 5.3 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO") passed the two different penalty orders both dated 16.03.2022 and levied penalty of Rs. 14,03,453/- for Concealment of Income for assessment year 2015-16 and levied penalty of Rs. 59,458/-for AY 2016-17. The Assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The CIT (A) dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and upheld the penalty order passed by the AO. The Assessee being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A) has preferred the present appeal before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Assessee deserves to be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that there was a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act conducted on 3.1.2019 in the case of Shri M. Chandrasekhar Group & Others. In this connection, search was also conducted at the premises of M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, No.212/G, D-Block, Opal Road Extension, Shivamogga. Various incrimination evidences were found and seized during the course of search operation showed the material pertain to are relating to the assessee. Consequent to the search in the case of M/s. Vinayaka Enterprises, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee and assessment was made. There was offer of income by assessee at Rs. 87,81,840/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and Rs. 28,39,380/- for the assessment year 2016-17. Had been there no search action, the assessee would not have declared this income in the return of income filed u/s 153C of the Act. Hence, the penalty to be confirmed and further she submitted that the assessee not filed original return u/s 139 of the Act. Therefore, on merit, the penalty to be sustained and the additional ground shall not be considered as there was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to Rs. 14,03,453/- the same is worked out as under: Concealed income Rs.45,41,920/- Tax @ 30% Rs.13,62,576/- Education cess @ 3% of (a) Rs.40,877/- Total tax sought to be evaded Rs.14,03,453/-" 7.5 For the assessment year 2016-17, in para 6 he mentioned as follows: "6. The amount of tax sought to be evaded works out to Rs. 59,458/- the same is worked out as under: Concealed income Rs.1,92,420/- Tax @ 30% Rs.57,726/- Education cess @ 3% of (a) Rs.1,732/- Total tax sought to be evaded Rs.59,458/-" 7.6 Thus, it seems that though the ld. AO initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, however, he levied the penalty for concealment of income. It is settled principle that whenever ld. AO initiate the levy of penalty either for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, he should specify the same and bring to the notice of the assessee so tht the assessee would be in a position to give reply to the levy of penalty under which circumstances penalty has been levied. 7.7 In our opinion, the ld. AO has not applied his mind while passing the penalty order and not given fair opportunity of hearing to the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Otherwise though the initiation of penalty proceedings may be valid and legal, the final order imposing p....