Sri Rajan R Srinivasan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore
In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year
ITA 521/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri Rajan R Srinivasan, No.2965, 12Th Main, Hal 2Nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560008. … Appellant Pan:Afsps 7509F Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Incomet-Ax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bairav Kuttaiah, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/01/2009 Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In This Appeal, Th Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Wherein The Cit(Appeals) Confirmed The Order Of The Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Under Which The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Imposed On The Assessee By The Ao Are As Follows: The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ From M/S. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pune Besides Income From Business. The Ao Concluded The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessee Claimed As Expenditure Incurred In Connection With Business Of The Assessee A Page 2 Of 10 Sum Of Rs.8,57,872/-. These Expenses Were Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That They Were Purely Personal In Nature & The Assessee Could Not Establish The Nexus Of Those Expenses With The Business Of The Assessee. In Respect Of Addition Made As Aforesaid, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Levied On The Assessee For Concealing Particulars Of Income & Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.
For Appellant: Shri Bairav Kuttaiah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B
…ars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limbis not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate…
