SHRIMATI VEENA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 554/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 January 2019AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars, but the penalty was levied for concealment of income. Since the charge for levying the penalty was different from the charge for initiating the proceedings, the penalty was not justified.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition of Rs. 24,39,000/- on account of cash deposit in a saving bank account and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied for concealment of income, which the assessee argued was a different charge.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied for concealment of income is valid when penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CAMP BENCH ‘SMC’ AT JALANDHAR

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble

Hearing: 17.01.2019Pronounced: 17.01.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH ‘SMC’ AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President ITA No.554/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Smt. Veena, Vs Income Tax Officer, D/o Sham Lal, H.No. 59/4, Ward-1(4), Deol Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEPPV6629D Assessee by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Revenue by : Sh. Lalit Mohan Jindal, DR Date of Hearing : 17.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 ORDER

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.09.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-1,Jalandhar.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.10.2009 declaring an income of Rs.1,32,000/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO made the addition of Rs.24,39,000/- on account of cash deposit in the saving bank account. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s

ITA No. 554/Asr./2018 2 Veena 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and levied the penalty of Rs.6,93,499/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty levied by the AO.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, a reference was made to page no. 14 of the assessment order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that the AO in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 05.12.2011 stated that the assessee concealed the particulars of income. It was submitted that the initiation of penalty was on different footings and the notice has been issued for different charge. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the AO was not justified when there was no specific charge for concealment of income in the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right perspective wrongly confirmed the penalty levied by the AO.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

7.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but the penalty has been levied for concealment of income which was not the charge while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned penalty levied

ITA No. 554/Asr./2018 3 Veena by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 17/01/2019)

Sd/- (N. K. Saini) VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 17/01/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →