Case Law Details
ABR Auto (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
After perusing the assessment order, we find that assessing officer also did not record his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings, because while passing the assessment order dated 30-12-2011 passed under section 143(3)(ii) of the Act, the assessing officer has stated that “….. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment income……………….”, which is not sufficient and therefore, the penalty proceedings cannot be said to be validly initiated under such circumstances. However, nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
assessee has filed the appeal against the Order dated 4-9-2015 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals-I), New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The solitary issue raised in the appeal is relating to upholding the penalty of Rs. 36,58,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The facts in brief are that assessee is an investment company and has made investment in the shares of closely held unquoted companies. The total amount of investment as on 31-3-2008 was Rs. 8,04,71,569. The Assessment in this case was made making the following additions:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
