SHRI AJAYKUMAR BATRA,BANDARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 7, NAGPUR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-II, Nagpur dated 22.09.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

The grounds raised

Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.95,76,190/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed the “revised” return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,46,76,192/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee offered an additional income of Rs.50 lakhs. In the result, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,46,76,192/-. Hence, considering the said additional income, which was not declared in the original return of income, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings recording the satisfaction that it is a case of both the case (para 3 of the assessment order).

The CIT(A), after considering the written submission of the assessee and following preceding year’s decision in assessee’s own case i.e. assessment year 2009-10, confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 6 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard.

Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted grounds. 6. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set-aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, ld. Counsel Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we pursed the orders of the Revenue authorities. On perusal of para 3 of the assessment order, we find the following is the reasons for initiation of penalty proceedings :- “3. ……… concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. Further, we also perused the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.04.2012. On perusal of para 5 of the penalty order, we find the following is the reasons for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act :- ………. assessee has concealed his income ……” “5.