2025 (12) TMI 1044

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Ld. 'FAA') in DIN & Order No : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051172314(1) arising out of the penalty order dated 05.01.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the AO, National Faceless Assessment Unit, Delhi for AY: 2016-17. 2. Heard and perused the records. The Appellant, Corteva Agriscience Seeds Private Limited (formerly known as PHI Seeds Private Limited) (the Appellant) was established in 1988 to undertake the cultivation of Hybrid seeds on agricultural lands situated in India and selling the seeds to farmers. Since inception the Appellant has been engaged in farming activity of growing seeds by way of carrying out all basic agricultural operations like sowing, tilling etc. on agr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty proceedings for the year under review were initiated by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings and were commenced via show cause notice dated 22.12.2018. The appellant company filed detailed submissions in response to the show cause notices thus issued. Ld. AO levied penalty amounting to INR 99,77,25,95%- @ hundred percent of the tax sought to be evaded by the appellant company as alleged by AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant company approached the CIT(A) but failed thus this appeal. 5. In this case, the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016- 17 on 30.11.2016 admitting therein total income of Rs. 51,57,14,370/- Subsequently its case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed his reply to penalty notice but Ld. AO did not find same reasonable or sufficient cause which could salvage the assessee from the levy of penalty. Ld. AO held that; "Provisions of section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable in assessee's case as both concealment of income and filling of inaccurate particulars of income are present in the assessee's case. The tax payable on Rs. 2,88,29,34,464/- comes to Rs. 9,97,72,595/- and 300% of the same comes to Rs. 2,99,31,77,874/-. But considering the facts of the assessee's case, penalty of Rs. 997725958/- (it being 100% of tax on the total concealed amount of Rs. 2,88,29,34,464/-) is hereby imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reasons mentione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 99,77,25,958/- and 300% of the same was calculated followed by imposition of penalty of Rs. 99,77,25,958/- for being 100% of the tax on the total concealed amount. 10. Thus, it is established that there is complete variance in the reasons for assumption of jurisdiction to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of allegation on assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars but levying penalty on allegation of concealment of income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v. CIT, 292 ITR 11 (SC) has emphasized that "'Concealment of particulars of income' and 'Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' denote two different connotations. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax ....