BABU SAYABANNA MEHETRE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 530/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 April 2019AY 2012-135 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 lacked clarity in initiating and levying the penalty. The satisfaction suffered from ambiguity as the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) was not mentioned.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee disclosed additional income of Rs. 1,21,88,000/-. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the returned income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb of the section.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “B” BENCH, PUNE

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
Hearing: 20.03.2019Pronounced: 25.04.2019

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” �यायपीठ पुणे म� । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” 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.530/PUN/2017 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Babu Sayabanna Mehetre, Office No.8, Deep Laxmi Building, Near Power House Chowk, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune-411033. PAN : ABAPM3697A .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ACIT, Circle-9, ……��यथ� / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-13, Pune dated 27.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The effective ground raised by the assessee is as under :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer have erred in levying penalty of Rs.36,45,400/- by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by disregarding appellant’s contention in this regard.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is a promoter, builder & developer and is engaged in the business of civil

2 ITA No.530/PUN/2017

construction under the name and style “M/s. Renuka Construction”. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,88,70,377/-. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 18.02.2013. During the course of survey, the assessee disclosed an additional income of Rs.1,21,88,000/- for the year under consideration on the basis of unaccounted cash receipts detected with respect to sale of flats which were not found to be appearing in the books. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that he had already paid the taxes on the said additional income and in this regard filed the revised return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer did not satisfy with the explanation of the assessee and added the said additional income of Rs.1,21,88,000/- to the returned income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without mentioning any limb of the Act. (para 4.1 of the assessment order). 4. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer clearly stated that the levy of penalty for the default of concealment of income (para 7 of the penalty order). 5. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 2.4 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard.

3 ITA No.530/PUN/2017

6.

Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted ground. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and find that this is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record proper 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 4.1 of the assessment order, we find the following is the reasons for initiation of penalty proceedings :- “4.1 ……… Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately.” 8. Further, we also perused the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.07.2015. On perusal of para 7 of the penalty order, we find the following is the reasons for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act :- “7. ……….. I am therefore satisfied that this is a clear case of concealment.” 9. The above extracts reveal 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. 10. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting 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

4 ITA No.530/PUN/2017

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, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A).

11.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below.

12.

Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind.

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, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer

5 ITA No.530/PUN/2017

to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed on legal issue. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 25th day of April, 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 : 25th April, 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)-13, Pune. 4. The CCIT, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” 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 →