Sh. Sameer Aggarwal, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 523/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0641 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKER
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 TO 2011-12 PAN: AAYPA9570D SHRI SAMEER AGGARWAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. SUBHASH CHANDER, WARD-III(2), JALANDHAR. 7, SHIVAJI PARK, LADOWALI ROAD, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.J.S. BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. BHAWANI SHANKER, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/06/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM; THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS, EACH DATED 13.05.2015, PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A)-I, JALANDHAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2011-12, AGAINST THE CO NFIRMATION OF PENALTIES LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT ( IN SHORT, THE ACT), 1961. 2. THE CRUX OF THE GROUNDS IS THAT THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF FURN ISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF CONCEALING THE 2 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, THE ORDER IMPOSING PE NALTY WAS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS ARE BEIN G TAKEN FROM ITA NO.518(ASR)/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. T HE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SALARY INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND FIL ED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,13,900/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED RE VISED RETURN DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,29,310/-. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE DATED 25.03.2013 BY THE AO. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E FROM 01.04.2005 AND ONWARD. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 28.03.2013 HE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN ON 28.01.2013 AND MAY BE TREATED HIS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED BY THE A O AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.1,52,256/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.1,29,3 10/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN. WHILE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.22,946/- TO THE REVISED RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C OF THE ACT WERE IN ITIATED BY THE AO AND NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E, LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.4,144/- FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED. 3 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR ISSUING PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE PENALTY HAS BE EN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS DR AWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 4 OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.05.2014, WHERE THE AO HAS STATED AS UNDER: IT IS A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE TAX HAS BEEN CO NCEALED BY NOT DECLARING TRUE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE PREFERS TO REVI SE THE RETURN OF INCOME SUO-MOTO ONLY AFTER VERIFICATION OF BANK ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT. PRIOR TO THIS SITUATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. HENCE, IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FROM TRADING OF POULTRY FEED WHICH HAS NOT B EEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHEREAS PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE STATED THAT THE PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR CON CEALMENT OF INCOME WHEN IT WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE ALSO INVITED THE ATTENTIO N OF THE BENCH TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 5.8 AT PAGE 41 & 42, CON FIRMING THE PENALTY FOR 4 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 CONCEALING AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD TO LEVY THE PENALTY FOR WHICH HE HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. ASHOK PAI VS. CIT, 292 ITR 11, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE AO HAS TO STATE CLEARLY AS TO FOR WHI CH CHARGE HE IS INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) MS. MADHUSHREE GUPTA VS. UOI 317 ITR 107 (DEL ) II) MANU ENGINEERING, 122 ITR (306) (GUJ.) III) NEW SORATHIA ENGG. CO. VS. CIT 282 ITR 642 9 GUJ) IV) VIRGO MARKETING 171 TAXMAN 156 (DEL) V) ROSHAN LAL TILAK RAJ & CO., ITA NO.28(ASR)/201 4, DATED 22.01.2016. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RECENT DECISION OF I TAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN LAL TILAK RAJ & CO., ITA NO.28(ASR )/2014, DATED 22.01.2016. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PE NALTY ORDER HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION. I AM, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C ONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,41,931 /- AND IT IS A FIT CASE OF IMPOSING OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS.7,32,655/ - IS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM PROVIDED UN DER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 FROM THE ABOVE TWO SATISFACTIONS RECORDED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN PENALTY ORDER WE FIND THAT PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES AND ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCES WHEREAS THE SATISFACTION RECORDED IN PENALTY ORDER REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.20,41,931/-. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE THE TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION ITSELF WH EREIN THE TWO LIMBS HAS BEEN DIFFERENTIATED BY THE USE OF WORD OR,. FOR T HE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 271. (1) IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE [***][C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER] IN TH E COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY P ERSON- (A) [***] (B) [***] (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR [***] FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF [SUCH INCOME, OR] [(D) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE FRINGE BE NEFITS OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH FRINGE BENEFITS, THE LEARNED AR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE PENALTY BY SPECIFICALLY .....OUT THE VIOLATION OF A SPECIFIC LIMB WHICH IMPLIES THAT WHERE PENALTY IS INITIATED ON ONE LIMB OF SECTION THE ORDER OF PENALTY CANNOT BE PASSED ON ANOTHER LIMB OF SECTION. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 V IDE PARA 61 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT T O INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF A NY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN [2007] 2 92 ITR 11(SC) AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING WORKS REPORTED IN [ 1980] 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . VIRGO MARKETING P. LTD. REPORTED IN [2008] 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LE VY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN TH E NOTICE HAS TO BE 6 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOU T STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NO N-APPLICATION OF MIND. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAYESH R. KUMARI VS. ITO, IN ITA NO.453, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND CONSI DERED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO FACTS EVIDENCE AND MA TERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ISSUE IN RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY AND THE GROUNDS ARE INTER- RELATED. WE ACCORDINGLY PROCEED TO ADJUD ICATE THE ISSUE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NO GROUND-WISE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 27L(1)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVI ED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ARGUED THAT CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOM E AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE TWO LIMBS OF S ECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 275 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF T HE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD ON THE ISSUE OF CONCEALING PARTICULA RS OF INCOME. HE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD ON THE ISSUE OF FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE AO IS REQUIRED TO IMPOSE PENALTY, THEN HE HA S TO IMPOSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ONLY. HE CANNO T CHANGE IN THE MIND IMMEDIATELY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR THE REASO NS OTHER THAN WHICH HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER THAT THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTICE IS FOR CONCEALIN G THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ONCE THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY THE A O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HE HAS TO PROCEED IN THAT PROPOSITION AND THE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THIS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE AO HAS OPTED TO LEVY PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, H E IS AT LIBERTY TO DO THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTIC E U/S 274 OF THE ACT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THERE IS N O WHISPER BY THE AO REGARDING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE PENALTY CAS E BEFORE HIM/LATER ON, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASKED ANY EXPLANATION REGARDI NG FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR ONLY CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE IS NO C HARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE REGARDING FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. ONCE THE AO IS PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHED FROM FURNISHING INACCURATE 7 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAV ING BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY WAS BASED ON FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FO R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVI ED. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUIJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKHDHIR LALJI REPORTED IN 85 ITR 77 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN COMMENCED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON A PARTICULAR FOOTING VIZ. CONCEALING OF PARTICUL AR OF INCOME, BUT THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY WAS BASED ON A D IFFERENT FOOTING TOGETHER, VIZ. ON THE FOOTING OF FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFOR E THE ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY WAS PASSED. THE VERY BASIS FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INITIATED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DI SAPPEARED WHEN THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THERE WA S NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO IMPOS E A PENALTY U/S 27L(L)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT WAS CORRECT THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENTS, WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 7. SINCE, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON GROUND NO.1 , ITSELF OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AS BEING OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMI TTED THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN CANCELLED BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN LAL TILAK RAJ & CO.(SUPRA) ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONTENDED THAT FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME AND FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF 8 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 INCOME ITSELF AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 271(1)C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RIGHTLY ARGUED THAT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARE TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR LEVYING PENALTY. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY F OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE IS NO CHARGE AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE REGARDING CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ONCE THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHED FROM CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS LAKHDHIR LALJI, 85 ITR 77 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOW S:- THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN COMMENCED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON A PARTICULAR FOOTING VIZ. CONCEALING OF PARTICUL AR OF INCOME, BUT THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY WAS BASED ON A D IFFERENT FOOTING TOGETHER, VIZ. ON THE FOOTING OF FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFOR E THE ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY WAS PASSED. THE VERY BASIS FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INITIATED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DI SAPPEARED WHEN THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THERE WA S NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE INSPECTING 9 ITA NOS. 518 TO 523(ASR)/2015 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO IMPOS E A PENALTY U/S 27L(L)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT WAS CORRECT 8. FURTHER, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE O F ROSHAN LAL TILAK RAJ & CO., ITA NO.28(ASR)/2014, DATED 22.01.2016, FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SUPRA. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS CANC ELLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP OTHER APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I N ITA NOS. 519 TO 523(ASR)/2015. AS THE FACTS IN THESE APPEALS ARE S IMILAR, AS WE HAVE DECIDED HEREINABOVE IN ITA NO.518(ASR)/2015, OUR FINDINGS G IVEN IN ITA NO.518(ASR)/2015 WILL BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN ITA NOS. 519 TO 523(ASR)/2013. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTIES LEVIED IN THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO CANCELLED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 /06/2016. /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE:SHRI SAMEER AGGARWAL, JALANDHA R. (2) THE ITO WARD-III(2), JALANDHAR. (3) THE CIT(A), JLR (4) THE CIT, JLR (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER