Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
CIT vs. Samson
Perinchery; 392 ITR 4 (Bom):
The Assessing Officer
issued notice for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 on the ground of
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, he passed order imposing
penalty on the ground of concealment of income. The Tribunal deleted the
penalty on the ground that the initiation of penalty by the Assessing Officer was
for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income while the order imposing
penalty was for concealment of income and it could not be that the initiation
would be only on one limb, i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income
while imposition of penalty on the other limb, i.e. concealment of income.
On appeal by the Revenue,
the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The
satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two
breaches u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings would
not permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. Thus, the order imposing
penalty was to be made only on the ground on which the penalty proceedings were
initiated and it could not be on a fresh ground of which the assessee had no
notice.
ii) The Tribunal rightly deleted the penalty. The appeals are
dismissed.”