SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO,RAJSUNAKHALA,NAYAGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/ITA No.342/CTK/2024 (िनधा�रण िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) वष� Santosh Kumar Sahoo, Vs ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda At: Durga Bazar, PO: Rajsunakhala, Nayagarh PAN No. :AXFPS 2477 K (अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� /Appellant) अपीलाथ� (��यथ� ��यथ� ��यथ� / Respondent) ��यथ� .. िनधा�रती िनधा�रती क� िनधा�रती िनधा�रती क� क� ओर क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by ओर : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA राज�व क� राज�व क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by राज�व राज�व क� क� ओर ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 30.06.2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066274744(1) for the assessment year 2010-2011, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That, penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in view of the fact that, the Ld. Assessing Officer had not reached at a positive finding that whether the appellant concealed the income or furnished the particulars of income and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty of 6,09,800 is liable to be deleted. 2. That, the penalty order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer without recording any satisfaction in the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction, and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct in dismissing this ground of appeal. 3. That, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation and therefore liable to be quashed. 4. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding.

2 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

business premises of the assessee on 24.03.2010. During the course of

survey, stock physically available was quantified and it was found that

assessee was having excess stock and accordingly addition was made on

this account vide order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2013.

The matter travelled upto ITAT and finally the addition was reduced to

Rs.10,09,500/- with respect to gold ornaments and Rs.1,50,447/- with

respect to silver ornaments items, in terms of the order passed

u/s.144/254 of the Act dated 17.03.2021. In the meantime, the AO

proceeded with pending penalty proceedings and levied penalty

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 26.04.2019 at Rs.6,09,800/- by

treating the excess stock of Rs.18,73,275/- of gold jewellery and

Rs.1,50,447/- of silver jewellery articles found in excess during the course

of survey, determined vide order dated 31.10.2018, passed u/s.144

r.w.s.254 of the Act.

was levied on the amount of Rs.20,23,722/- holding the same as excess

stock found during the course of survey. The said amount was reduced

further by the AO in its order passed u/s.154 of the Act and finally the

addition sustained was of Rs.10,09,500/- with respect to gold ornaments

and Rs.1,50,447/- of silver ornaments/articles. He further submitted that

while initiating the penalty proceedings the ld. AO has failed to record

satisfaction whether assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of

income or concealed the income. He further drew our attention to the

3 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

notice issued for initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the

Act which reads as under :-

it was not specified in the notice about which fault proceedings were

initiated i.e. whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished

inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, the penalty is required to

be deleted.

4 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

and submitted that though the AO has not clearly stated that on which

limb the penalty proceedings are initiated, however, the ld. CIT(A) has

observed that the satisfaction was recorded for furnishing inaccurate

particular of income and confirmed the penalty. He, accordingly,

supported the order of the lower authorities and requested for the

confirmation of the penalty so levied by the lower authorities.

available on record. In this case, from the assessment order it is seen that

while initiating the penalty proceedings, the AO has not recorded

satisfaction as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was invoked

for initiation of penalty proceedings. The relevant observations of the AO

as contained in page 14 of the assessment order are reproduced

hereunder :-

5 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

satisfaction that the assessee has either concealed the income or

furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. From the perusal of the

observations made by the AO while initiating the penalty proceedings in

the assessment order it is clear that he has not recorded his satisfaction

on either of the limb nor in the notice issued u/s.274(1) r.w.s.271(1)(c) of

the Act dated 21.03.2013, it was specifically pointed out as to whether the

assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished the

inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings

initiated without recording the satisfaction is liable to be quashed. In this

regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73

taxmann.com 248(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed

the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was

decided in favour of the assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case

of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka is reproduced below:-

"2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that

6 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed."

goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings

by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying

whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee

has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide

adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice.

Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner

without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice

sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

7 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished

inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted

proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act

carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing

Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware

as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond

accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha

Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of

penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per

Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first

limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked.

The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under

section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead

to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR

519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice

under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the

inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the

Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the

basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or

furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non-

application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and,

8 ITA No.342/CTK/2024

having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued

notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.03.2013

without striking off the irrelevant words and more particularly looking to

the satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, as reproduced above,

the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the

Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.

looking to the fact that the AO has failed to record the satisfaction about

any limb at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the

Act, therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby

deleted.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER सद�य कटक कटक Cuttack; �दनांक Dated 14/10/2024 कटक कटक Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- 1. Santosh Kumar Sahoo, At: Durga Bazar, PO: Rajsunakhala, Nayagarh ��यथ� / The Respondent- 2. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक 5. कटक कटक / DR, ITAT, कटक Cuttack गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack