Amitabha Sanyal Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act untenable without concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
Facts- Vide the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contested the imposition of penalty of ₹4,56,362/-, being without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid, bad in law, without recording proper satisfaction within the meaning of Section 271 of the Act and without appreciating that the amount of ₹22,95,849/-arising in the hands of the assessee was duly included in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act. It is further stated that AO erred in levying the penalty without appreciating that finding in the assessment proceedings are not binding for the penalty proceedings and the penalty cannot be automatically imposed.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [2000] 246 ITR 121 has held that under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there can be no question of imposing any penalty.
