KALAVATI HANUMANDAS AGRAWAL,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1323/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 August 2019AY 2013-145 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and was ambiguous in initiating and levying the penalty. The penalty was unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer did not specify the appropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealed income/unexplained expenditure and levied a penalty without specifying the limb of the clause. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the Assessing Officer fails to specify the limb of the clause and lacks proper satisfaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

Hearing: 29.08.2019Pronounced: 29.08.2019

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” �यायपीठ पुणे म� । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE �ी डी. क�णाकरा राव, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी िवकास अव�थी, �याियक सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1323/PUN/2017 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kalavati Hanumandas Agrawal, 3218, Agra Road, Opp. Shere Punjab Lodge, Dhule-424001. .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant PAN : ACNPA1427E बनाम / V/s. ……��यथ� / Respondent ACIT, Circle Dhule. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mrs. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29.08.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 13.04.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The effective ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is as under :- “The penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) should be cancelled.” 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is a Firm engaged in the business of Semi Wholesaler as commission agent in

2 ITA No.1323/PUN/2017

Kerosene distribution, FDR and interest income. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.15,16,234/-. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,66,720/- after making certain additions. Further, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceeding in respect of an addition of Rs.74,486/- u/s 14A of the Act stating that “….. it is a case of concealed income/unexplained particulars of expenditure …..” (both the limbs mentioned and specific limb not ticked). (para 5 of the assessment order). 4. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer without mentioning any limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act levied the penalty of Rs.23,016/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A), relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and various other judicial precedents on this issue, confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 6 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted ground. 7. Before us, there is none to represent the case from assessee’s side. However, ld. DR fairly submitted that the legal issue relating to the limb

3 ITA No.1323/PUN/2017

of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act is involved. However, the ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. Considering the material available on record, we find that this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record proper and sustainable satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we pursed the orders of the Revenue authorities.

On perusal of para 5 of the assessment order, we find the 9. following is the reasons for initiation of penalty proceedings :- ….. it is a case of concealed income/unexplained particulars “7. of expenditure …..”

10.

Further, we also perused the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.07.2016. On perusal of the penalty order, we find the Assessing Officer without mentioning any limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

11.

From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind while recording the satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4 ITA No.1323/PUN/2017

12.

From the material available on record, it is seen that the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set-aside on the legal issue relating to the ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer while dealing with the initiation and levy of penalty. In view of the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A).

13.

Therefore, considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case and without waiting for the AR for the assessee, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

5 ITA No.1323/PUN/2017

14.

Considering the relief, the adjudication of other grounds on merits of penalty becomes an academic exercise only. Accordingly, the other grounds are dismissed as academic. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th day of August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th August, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nashik. 4. The CCIT, Nashik. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →