TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case and as per provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be kindly held that the quantum addition so made is incorrect and accordingly the penalty proceedings so emanating from an incorrect addition also deserves to be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from business of trading of land and real estate and has furnished his return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 9,49,160/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has disclosed sales summary of Rs. 86,03,600/-, however the assessee has received Rs. 1,29,58,000/-. On an enquiry the assessee replied that the excess amount of Rs. 43,51,400/- is repayable to the partners and it is not the part of income. The Assessing Officer asked to produce the return of partnership firm wherein the excess amount has been shown as receivable by the firm. The assessee replied that there is no partnership firm and it is a group of 8 to 10 members who purchase land jointly and after selling th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Mak Data Private Limited (supra), the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from penalty. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy only whether the penalty proceeding is to be initiated or not during the course of assessment proceedings. He is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or to reduce it in writing. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) concealment of particulars of income by the respondent assessee. He also directed for issuance of notice. The issuance of notice under section 274 was merely a consequence of the penalty proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee was well aware of the fact of concealment of particulars of income by him, which was well discussed in both the assessment orders by the Assessing Officer. (Para27] Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) then consequential notice under section 274 issued by Assessing Officer to the assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was specifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed income. Such a notice complied with the principles of natural justice and was a valid notice under section 274. In Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) heavily relied by learned counsel for the respondent assessee, Karnataka High Court held that "Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c)" and "the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically". We find that in the present set of facts, notice under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the respondent assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing for concealment of particulars of income. Details of un-disclosed/concealed income have been well mentioned in the Assessment Order of the respondent assessee and being well aware of it, the respondent assessee made specific submission in penalty proceedings which we have reproduced above. Thus, essential requirements o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AR submitted before the bench that under the identical facts and similar circumstances Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd., Income Tax appeal No.1943 of 2018 order dated 27.02.2025 has dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following the full bench decision passed in the case of Mohammed Farhan vs. DCIT [2021] 125 Taxmann.com 253 (Bombay). Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the issue is covered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court judgement passed in the case of DCIT vs. Times Global Broadcasting Ltd. order dated 27.02.2025 supra and prayed to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the ground of in correct notice. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and also the copy of judgement passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Times Global Broadcasting Ltd. (supra) wherein under the identical facts & in similar circumstance....