Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhry
Per N. S. Saini, AM:
These are the two appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by DCIT-VI, Pathankot of Rs.9,77,480/-.
ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 2 Earthtech Engineers 2. In view of the above stated facts, the appeal No. 553/Asr./2017 is dismissed on the ground of filing duplicate appeal.
Now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal No. 580/Asr./2017.
The AR of the assessee Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. And Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. has filed before us at page No. 13 of the paper book notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22.12.2011. He submitted that it will be seen from the notice that the same has been issued for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, the order of penalty dated 30.05.2013 levy of penalty of Rs.9,77,480/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and hence not sustainable.
The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submission of Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) dated 30.05.2013 levied penalty of Rs.9,77,480/-.
The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue
ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 3 Earthtech Engineers 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 oj 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 the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid inspite 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?”
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
ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 4 Earthtech Engineers 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 on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565.
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."
Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) apparently 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.
The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted 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
ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 5 Earthtech Engineers 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, 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 22.12.2011 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show anon-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.
The facts of the present appeal are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’s. Emarld Meadows(supra). In the instant case the
ITA Nos. 553 & 580/Asr./2017 6 Earthtech Engineers AO while levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has observed that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income and has also furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. Thus, he is not specific as to whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, respectfully following the quoted decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we cancel the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.05.2013 levying penalty of Rs.9,77,480/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.553/Asr./2017 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA No.580/Asr./2017 is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/02/2019)
Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Choudhry) (N. S. Saini) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 21/02/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR