TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t'). 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that on wrong assumption of fact, the Ld.PCIT has invoked his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order can't be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, it needs to be interfered by this Tribunal and prayed that it be cancelled. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee company had undergone search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act on 17.03.2021 and pursuant to which, the case was centralized with the DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Coimbatore, who issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act to the assessee company for AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21 on 30.10.2021 and pursuant to it, assessee filed return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19 on 31.01.2022 declaring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,816/- 5. Referring to the chart (supra), it was pointed out that the Ld.PCIT was of the opinion that the AO erred in passing these assessment orders without initiating the relevant penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act, which omission on the part of the AO was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he justified his action to interfere u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee objected to the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT invoking revisional jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings and cited the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. CRK Swamy reported in [2002] 254 ITR 0158 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court was pleased to uphold the action of the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Assessing Officer had in the assessment order established that the Assessee had concealed his income by filing inaccurate particulars". There is no such finding in the order of assessment. The Principal Commissioner seems to have distorted the order of assessment. The finding of the Principal Commissioner is to that extent perverse. 15. In our view, in the absence of any finding of the Assessing Officer with regard to concealment of income or with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the Commissioner clearly erred in holding that omission to record satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The learned Tribunal rightly set aside the direction of the Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AR, even if the order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CMRL (supra) is carefully read, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly pointed out in the last two Paragraphs of the order i.e. Para No.14 in the case of M/s.CMRL (supra), the Hon'ble High Court noted that Ld.PCIT has recorded a finding of fact that "on examination of the records, it is found that the AO had in the assessment order established that the assessee had concealed his income for filing inaccurate particulars". However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court after going through the records of that case [M/s.CMRL (supra)], found that there was no such finding recorded by the AO in the order of assessment. Therefore, the Hon'ble Madras High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g or misreporting of income u/s. 270A of the Act, the Ld.PCIT erred in holding that omission to initiate penalty u/s. 270A of the Act was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find considerable force in the submission of the Ld.AR and find that the Ld.PCIT erred in recording a finding of fact in his impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act that in the assessment orders in question, the AO has given a clear finding that the additions made in the assessment order attracted penalty as per the provisions of Sec.270A of the Act. Further, it is noted that it is not the case of the Ld.PCIT that the AO erred in initiating penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act for all the three assessment years i.e. AY 2018-19 to 2020-21. It i....