Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, JM The instant batch of thirteen cases pertains to six assesses. relevant details of these cases read as under: -
Proceeding Sr.No AY Order appealed against under Section CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated Vastu 21.12.2016 Case No. 1 2006-07 1098/Pun/2017 271(1)(c) Estate PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), Pune/7/2016-17 2 2005-06 1099/Pun/2017 CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated 09.12.2016 Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), Jain Pune/11/2016-17 ” Ashapuri Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- 200607 1100/Pun/2017 Estate 7(1), Pune/12/2016-17 Dated 12.05.2017 2007-08 1969/Pun/2017 Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- 7(1), Pune/13/2016-17
3 TA No. 1098 + 12/Pun/2017 M/s. Vastue Estate
CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated 2006-07 1964/Pun/2017 Jain 11.05.2017 Case No. Ashapuri PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), 3 “ Shinde Pune/20/2016-17 Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- 2007-08 1965/Pun/2017 Associates 7(1), Pune/21/2016-17 2005-06 1970/Pun/2017 CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated 11.05.2017 Case No. Jain PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), Ashapuri Pune/17/2016-17 2996-07 1971/Pun/2017 “ 4 Promoters Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- and 7(1), Pune/17/2016-17 2007-08 1972/Pun/2017 Builders Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- 7(1), Pune/17/2016-17 Jain CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated Promoters 12.05.2017 Case No. “ 5 2006-07 1973/Pun/2017 and PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), Pune/10/2016-17 Builders 2005-06 1974/Pun/2017 CIT(A)-5, Pune order dated 12.05.2017 Case No. Jain PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-7(1), Ashapuri Pune/14/2016-17 2006-07 1975/Pun/2017 6 Builders “ Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- and 7(1), Pune/15/2016-17 2007-08 1976/Pun/2017 Promoters Case No. PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd- 7(1), Pune/16/2016-17 Heard both the sides and case files perused.
We notice at the outset that the assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance raised in these respective appeals challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action levying Section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) involving varying sums. We find from the “lead” appeal that the impugned penal action has arises on account of various quantitative additions under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that the department had made the impugned disallowances/ additions as per the common search action herein dated 10.08.2006 in all these cases.
It next emerges that this tribunal’s common quantum order dated 30th November, 2017 in all these assessees’ appeals has already deleted majority of the disallowances/additions, ie partners’ capital contribution, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 40(3) etc. Learned coordinate bench has further directed the Assessing Officer to verify the specified amounts of unexplained income addition afresh. And it has further ordered afresh recomputation of entire income. The impugned penalty(ies) have hardly any legs to stand therefore. Coupled with this, we find that the assessees have also filed its petition dated
4 TA No. 1098 + 12/Pun/2017 M/s. Vastue Estate 31st January, 2022 that even the penalty proceedings herein also deserve to be quashed once the Assessing Officer’s corresponding show cause notice; all of them issued in identical terms dated 31st December, 2010 in the foregoing lead case, nowhere specify the corresponding limb as to whether these taxpayers had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income or both; respectively.
Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued that the assesse(s) are estopped from raising the instant legal ground at this belated stage. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objection in the case in light of NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) as considered in All Cargo Global Logistics vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB), holds that the instant case very well entertain a pure legal question at any stage provided all facts are part of record. Coming to the Assessing Officer’s penalty show cause notice, there is hardly any dispute that he has not even specified any particular expression as to in what manner these assessees’ deserve to be penalised under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which goes against the tenor of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent Full Bench decision in Mohammed Farhan A. Shaik A Shah vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) taking into consideration all judicial pronouncements till date. Apart from the foregoing merits of the disallowances/additions wherein majority of them stand deleted in light of the quantum proceedings, we hold that the impugned penal proceedings are also liable to be quashed on this legal aspect. The same are accordingly annuled for this precise reason. All these assessees succeed in their corresponding legal ground(s) as well.
These six assessees’ thirteen appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.