TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order was not challenged by the appellant and also that there is an element of concealment. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the very premises, on which the Learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty is misconceived and not tenable. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and of reaçind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises." 3. The assessee is a private Limited Company and filed its e-return of income on 24.09.2014 declaring total income at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and consequently notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.09.2016. In the scrutiny assessment the A.O had made an addition of Rs. 44,57,310/- on account of impermissible loss claimed by the assessee from the transactions carried out in the National Multi Commodity Exchange of India (MCX) by treating them as bogus transactions on account of manipulated synchronized trading on MCX. The assessee did not challenged the assessment order as this was otherwise speculative loss not allowable for set off against any other income except profit f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon the following decisions: (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC). (ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Auric Investment 310 ITR 121 (Del.) 3.1 Ld. AR has also raised the objection about the validity of the initiation of penalty proceedings and consequential order passed by the A.O on the ground that the A.O was not sure about the default/charge under which the penalty was to be levied and therefore, the order of levying penalty is not sustainable and liable to the quashed. In support of this contention the Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) ITO V/s Shri Uday Kumar B Bhatt ITA No.2072/Ahd/2018 of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench dated 06.08.2021. (ii) M/s HPCL Mittal Pipe Lines Ltd V/s ACIT ITA No.266(ASR)/2018 of ITAT Amritsar Bench dated 14.02.2019. (iii) M/s Oriental Clearing Agency V/s DCIT ITA No.356 to 359/Pun/2015 of ITAT Pune Bench. (iv) M/s Atibir Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd V/s DCIT CC-XI, Kolkatta ITA No.1221/Kol/2011 of ITAT, Kolkatta Bench. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that the A.O has issued the show cause notice u/s 142(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shah, CA appeared and submitted the details and submissions which were considered by the A.O and thereafter, the A.O has further proceeded to conduct enquiry about the nature of transactions being manipulated, synchronized trading on MCX by obtaining the details from the Stock exchange. In this process the A.O has again issued a show cause notice and confronted with the assessee about the facts detected during the investigation conducted by the A.O. Against the said show cause notice the Ld. AR has taken the plea that the assessee already suo-moto withdrew the claim by the filing the revised computation. However, it is not a case of voluntarily withdrawal of the impermissible claim by the assessee but only when the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and the A.O issued notice u/s 142(1) on 18.12.2015, the assessee filed revised computation of income on 13.12.2016 to withdraw the claim. Thus it is not a case of voluntarily act on the part of the assessee before the A.O taken up the case for scrutiny or even before first show cause notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 18.12.2015. Therefore, we do not find any substance or merit in the contention of the Ld. AR of the assessee. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge of furnishing incorrect particulars of income. Further in the show cause notice dated 28.12.2016 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1(C) of the Act placed at page-62 of the paper book the A.O has again mentioned the specific charge for initiating proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For ready reference the show cause notice is reproduced as under: 6.2 The A.O has consciously deleted all irrelevant and unrelated part of the show cause notice and only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was mentioned in the show cause notice. Thus, it is a case of initiation of penalty proceedings against a specific charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which in our view is a correct charge for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly there is no defect either in recording of satisfaction or in issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Once the penalty proceedings were initiated on a definite charge and was made known to the assessee by both means of recording the satisfaction in the assessment order as well as serving the show cause notice then the objectio....