TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to as "the AO") under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee, Shri Vishnu Kumar Gurnani, has since passed away and the appeal has been filed and is being prosecuted through his legal heir, Smt. Pushpa Devi Gurnani. 2. There is a delay of 2 days in filing this appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reasons for the delay. Having considered the same, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 are, in substance, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the assessee on 10.12.2014, in the course of which the assessee surrendered undisclosed income of Rs 1,60,00,000. The return of income was filed on 27.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs 1,70,18,480, which included Rs 1,50,00,000 offered on account of the survey. In the scrutiny proceedings, the AO confronted the assessee with the difference of Rs 10,00,000. The assessee, by letter dated 30.10.2017, admitted the mistake and furnished a revised computation along with the challan of tax paid on the balance. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 14.11.2017 at Rs 1,80,18,480 by adding Rs 10,00,000, and recorded as under: "The assessee was required to show this income in his return of income. But he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate particulars of income/concealment of income. The penalty order eventually levied penalty specifically for concealment of income and though the printed notice used standard language without striking off inapplicable portions, the subsequent order specifies the charge, and the assessee was well aware of the nature of proceedings, as evident from the detailed submissions made in response." 8. He further observed that "the charge of concealment became evident during assessment and was pursued in the penalty order". On the merits, he held that the assessee had ample time to declare the full amount surrendered, that the tax on the balance was paid only after detection, and the penalty was confirmed. 9. Before us, the learned Authorised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....available on record. Since ground No. 1 concerns the validity of the very initiation of the penalty proceedings, we take it up first. The facts are not in dispute. The assessment order records that the assessee "has furnished inaccurate particulars of income" and initiates penalty "for inaccurate particulars/concealment of income". The notice under section 274 of the Act alleges that the assessee "concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income", without indicating which. The penalty is levied on the finding that the assessee "has concealed income". Thus, the charge which the assessee was called upon to meet was never specified in the notice, and the charge on which the penalty was levied is not the on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2012. In view of the observations made in the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the appellant is required to be accepted and in the finding of Assessing Officer in the assessment order it is held that the AO, has to give a notice as to whether he proposes to levy penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. He cannot have both the conditions and if it is so he has to say so in the notice and record a finding in the penalty order. 10. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department." 14. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the coordinate Bench in Mohd. Sharif Khan (supra) deleted a ....