SONIGARA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 355/PUN/2020Status: HeardITAT Pune09 June 2022AY 2011-125 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 a defect in the penalty notice, where both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) are retained without striking off the inapplicable one, vitiates the penalty order. This is in line with the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee was found to have excess silver stock. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty based on this excess stock. The penalty notice, however, retained both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without striking out the inapplicable one.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the penalty notice retains both limbs of the section without striking off the inapplicable one, despite the addition being based on only one limb.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tapadiya
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-4, Pune on 31-01-2020 confirming the penalty of Rs.5,07,650 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to survey action u/s.133A of the Act on 22-03-2011, during the course of which it transpired, inter alia, that the assessee was having excess stock of silver of 30,423.95 grams with value at Rs.16,42,893/-. Neither any surrender was made on this score nor such an income was offered in the return filed. The addition was made by the AO for such sum along with that on account of excess Gold found during the survey and Cash difference. Eventually, the Assessing Officer (AO) imposed penalty of Rs.5,07,650 on the addition towards difference in silver stock amounting to Rs.16,42,893/-. Such penalty came to be affirmed in the first appeal.

3.

Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that there is only one addition constituting the foundation for the imposition of penalty, being, that of excess stock of silver found during the course of survey.

1.

Notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was initially issued on 07-03-2014 at the time of completion of the assessment by keeping both the limbs intact, namely, “concealed the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”.

After the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 05-03-2018 before imposing the penalty. A copy of such notice is also available on record. This notice also talks of both the limbs of section 271(1)(c), namely, “concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”.

Thus, it is apparent that as against the sole addition of excess stock of silver, the AO issued notice u/s.274 by keeping both the limbs of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) alive. Here, the question arises as to whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in such circumstances is sustainable? The full Bench of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. 4.

Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. Dy.CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom) has considered this very issue. Answering the question in affirmative, the Full Bench held that a defect in notice of not striking out the irrelevant words vitiates the penalty even though the AO had properly recorded the satisfaction for the imposition of penalty in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. In another judgment, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 248 (Bom) also took similar view that where inapplicable portions were not struck off in the penalty notice, it was vitiated. The SLP of the Department against this judgment has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC).

5.

In view of the overwhelming legal position, it is clear that where the charge is not properly set out in the notice u/s 274, viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off the inapplicable limb, the penalty order gets vitiated. Turning to the facts of the extant case, we find from the notice u/s 274 of the Act that the AO retained both the limbs, whereas penalty was imposed only with reference to one of them. Respectfully following the above Full Bench judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, we overturn the impugned order on this legal issue and direct to delete the penalty imposed by the AO.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th June, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 09th June, 2022 Satish

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

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 →