SHRI AVINASH SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 16.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.3,40,690/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.9,40,690/- by making an addition of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of deposits made in the saving bank account.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO initiated the penalty in the assessment order for concealing the particulars of income while the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty initiated was on different limb then the penalty levied.

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

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 concealing the particulars of income which is evident from page no. 5 of the assessment order dated 21.11.2011. However, the penalty was levied by the AO for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is clear that the initiation of penalty proceedings were on different count then the levy of penalty. In that view of the matter, the penalty levied by the AO on different charge then the initiation of penalty proceedings was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating this fact wrongly confirmed the same. Accordingly, the impugned penalty is deleted.