TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich in turn arises out of an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. That the Learned NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs. 6,21,198/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty deserves to be deleted. 2. That the penalty order is invalid as the specific limb (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars) is not clearly identified nor supported by a clear finding in the assessment order. 3. That the learned NFAC has grossly erred in law and on facts by confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,21,198/-, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, despite the final tax liability for A. Y. 2014-15, having been determined and lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with questionnaire requesting the assessee to file its return of income for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings was completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, on 31.10.2019 at a total income of Rs. 20,70,660/- and penalty proceedings was initiated. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the various judgments, the assessing officer had concluded that the case of the assessee was a fit case for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessing officer was satisfied that the case of the assessee was a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of particulars income of Rs. 20,70,660/- and therefore assessing officer levied pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invalid, as the specific limb "concealment of income" or "inaccurate particulars" is not clearly identified nor supported by a clear finding in the assessment order, hence, penalty levied by the assessing officer may be deleted. 7. The Learned Counsel further submitted that it is unintentional and inadvertent mistake by the chartered accountant of the assessee, while filling the return of income and appropriate form of AMT provision, every disallowance cannot be automatically penalized. For this, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (210) 322ITR 158 (SC), wherein it was held that bona fide claim/deduction disallowed by the assessing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is bad-in-law and for that I rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 574 (Bom)/[2020] 272 Taxman 157 (Bom) [11-11-2019], wherein it was held as follows: "4. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the assessee points out that there is absolutely no finding as regards concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He further points out that in the notice issued to the assessee on 30/09/2016, the Deputy Commissioner had not even bothered to strike down the relevant portion of the printed form in order to indicate whether the satisfaction is based upon the concealment of particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (supra), the notices issued had not struck of the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 3) is perused, it is apparent that the relevant portions have not been struck off. This coupled with the fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order are quite consistent by the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. The contention based upon MAK Da....