NEIA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2475/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 September 2019AY 2010-114 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 since the addition/disallowance on which the penalty was based was already deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot survive. Additionally, the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust appealed against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed following the disallowance of exemption claims under sections 11 & 12 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition is deleted, and whether proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 11,Section 12,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, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji
For Respondent: Shri Santuru Kumar Saika
Hearing: 11/09/2019Pronounced: 11/09/2019

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 12/01/2017 for assessment year 2010-11 confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Ms. Arathi Vissanji appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in vide order dated 18/01/2019 has deleted the addition made by the authorities below, hence, no (A.Y. 2010-11) penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee furnished a copy of Tribunal order in allowing assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act.

3.

On the other hand, Shri Santuru Kumar Saika appearing on behalf of the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal has granted part relief to the assessee.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides have perused the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 25/03/2015 has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act. The assessee challenged the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.544/Mum/2014(supra). The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after examining the issue allowed the appeal of the assessee in toto. Once the addition/disallowance has been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied on addition/disallowance does not survive.

5.

We further observe that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act . The Assessing Officer in last para i.e. para – 19 of the order has merely stated that “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiated issue notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c)” The Assessing Officer has not mentioned the charge under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty is being levied. However, while passing the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. Proper recording of satisfaction specifying charge for which penalty proceedings are initiated is one of the mandatory condition for levy of penalty (CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565(Kar).). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery reported as 392 ITR 4(Bom) has held that penalty cannot be levied on a charge other than for which satisfaction has been recorded. The relevant extract of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reads as under:-

6. The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[2007] 292 ITR 11/161 Taxman 340 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice.

6.

Thus in view of our above observation, the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. The impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.

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 →