S. 271(1)(c), S.274, Court (Cuttack)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S.274

Court (Cuttack)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]

The AO levied penalty which was confirmed by the CIT(A) On appeal the Tribunal held that notices under S. 274 read with S. 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee showed the inapplicable words in the notice had not been struck out. Even the last line of the notice only spoke of S. 271 and did not mention of S. 271(1)(c). The penalty order was based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice did not specify exactly under which limb the penalty under S. 271(1)(c) had been initiated. The AO was not sure under which limb of provisions of S. 271 the assessee was liable for penalty. The penalty levied under S. 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. (AY.2011-12)

Dibyajyoti Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 40 (SN) (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 22, 133A, Court (Jaipur)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Survey-Surrender of income-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable-As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 22, 133A

Court (Jaipur)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Survey-Surrender of income-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable-As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]

Tribunal held that the income of Rs. 3 crores as surrendered during the survey was duly declared in the return. The applicability of Explanation 5A is exclusively in the case of search and seizure action under S. 132 and the deeming provision cannot be applied in the case of survey conducted under S. 133A. When there was no difference between the returned income and the assessed income so far as the amount of Rs. 3 crores it would not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Therefore the penalty was deleted. However with regard to the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the addition of Rs. 10,565 on account of nondisclosure of the rental income since it was a clear case of concealment of particulars of his income, the penalty levied by the AO to the extent of the addition of Rs. 10,565 was upheld. (AY. 2016-17) Rajendra Shringi v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 85 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A, Court (Chennai)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A

Court (Chennai)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

Following the ratio in CIT v Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty (2002) 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) (HC), the Tribunal held that addition on estmimate basis, does not attract the penalty. As regards. un accounted cash transaction the Levy of penalty is held to be justified. Similarly disallowances u/s 40(a) (ia) which the assessee failed to add while filing the return u/s 153A the levy of penalty is held to be justified. (AY. 2007-08)

S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c), Explanation 5A, Court (Jaipur)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges-Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [Explanation 5A]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), Explanation 5A

Court (Jaipur)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges-Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [Explanation 5A]

The Tribunal held that the assessee was made aware of both the charges at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and while finally levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer had given a specific finding that it was a case of concealment of particulars of income. This was not a case of lack of opportunity to the assessee or lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. It was not the case of the assessee that the charge of concealment of particulars of income was not attracted in the facts of the present case. The Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and this had been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the assessee’s contention that it had suo motu filed the revised return disclosing unexplained investment in jewellery found during the course of search, on the ground that such return had been filed subsequent to the date of search. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. (AY. 2012-13)

Sarla Mundra (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020 81 ITR 65 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(2), Court (Delhi) (Trib.), Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-High court admitting department appeal on same issue-Review of order is impermissible. [S. 260A, 271AA, 271(1)(c)]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 254(2)

Court (Delhi) (Trib.)

Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-High court admitting department appeal on same issue-Review of order is impermissible. [S. 260A, 271AA, 271(1)(c)]

Dismissing the application, the Tribunal held that, the High Court had admitted the appeal filed by the Department on the same issue contested in the application. Therefore, the application did not survive. Besides this, the Department was seeking review of the order which was beyond the scope of section 254. There was no mistake apparent from the record.(AY.2010-11)

ACIT v. Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2020)77 ITR 305 (Delhi) (Trib.)