The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3484 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Although charge for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was uncertain at the initiation stage, but the same was made definite while passing the penalty order, therefore, it was not a case of lack of opportunity to the assessee as well as lack of application of mind on the part of the AO and hence, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) would be sustainable.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Leviability - Concealment of income - Charge for levy of penalty was uncertain at initiation stage, but the same was made definite while passing penalty order
AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) “for concealing particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” and subsequently, while passing the penalty order, the AO levied penalty for concealing the particulars of income. Assessee contended that since the AO failed to specify the charge while initiating the penalty proceedings, the said proceedings were vitiated. Held: AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) on both the charges however, while levying the penalty, the AO levied the penalty on a specific and clear-cut charge for concealing the particulars of income. Therefore, it was not a case where the penalty had been initiated for a particular charge and thereafter, penalty had been finally levied on a different charge. Further, the assessee was made aware of both the charges at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and while finally levying the penalty, the AO had given a specific finding that it was a case of concealment of particulars of income. Even where the charge was uncertain at the initiation stage, but the same had been made definite while passing the penalty order, therefore, it was not a case of lack of opportunity to the assessee as well as lack of application of mind on the part of the AO. Further, it was not a case of the assessee that the charge of concealment of particulars of income was not attracted in her case. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) would be sustainable.
Distinguished:B.D. Mundra & Sons v. DCIT [ITA No. 826/JP/2019 dated 25-10-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7195 (Jp-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2012-13
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |