Case Law Details
Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (ITAT Pune)
A perusal of the satisfaction recorded for initiating penalty proceedings, the reasons for the levy of penalty mentioned in the notice and the reason given in the order levying penalty under section 271(1) (c) are not coherent. While recording reasons for initiating penalty proceedings and thereafter at the time of issuance of notice for levy of penalty vagueness and ambiguity in the mind of the assessing officer with respect to charge for the levy of penalty appears writ large. The assessing officer is not consistent in specifying the limb under which penalty is to be levied. While recording satisfaction the assessing officer has used conjunction “and” to mention both the limbs for initiating penalty proceedings, whereas, in the notice issued under section 274 the assessing officer has used conjunction “or” to mention both the limbs i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T. Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) has held that the expression “concealment of income” and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income connote different meanings and cannot be used as substitute to each other.
It is apparent from the documents on record that there is inconsistency with respect to charge for levy of penalty at all the three stages i.e.,
(i) recording of satisfaction ;
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
