YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (INV.), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5303/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Young Indian, Addl. DIT (Inv.), Unit- 4, 5A, Herald House, New Delhi. Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs. New Delhi.

PAN : AAACY4625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, CA Shri Ankit Agarwal, CA : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR Department by Date of hearing : 19-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.07.2016 of the CIT(A)- 36, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that a letter was issued to M/s Young Indian on 04.07.2014 u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, seeking certain details of the company for the financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13. It was directed that the details be furnished within 10 days of receipt of the letter. However, the details were not furnished and instead vide their letter dated 14.07.2014 certain

2 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

concerns were expressed. In view of the concerns raised by them, summons u/s

131(lA) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 17.07.2014 directing them to

furnish the details as mentioned therein within four days of receipt of the

summons. Instead of furnishing the details called for, the assessee filed a letter

dated 21.07.2014 raising concerns about disclosure of information u/s 138 of the

IT Act. The DDIT, Unit IV(3) vide his letter dated 24.07.2014, addressed their

apprehension by intimating that they are unfounded and once again requested

them to furnish the details called for vide summons dated 17.07.2014 without

any further delay.

information regarding certain details requisitioned u/s 131(lA) of the IT Act

were either before the assessing officer (AO) or irrelevant. Regarding other

details it was submitted that they will arrange to submit it to the AO before

whom the assessment proceedings were pending and thus refused to comply

with the summons u/s 131(lA). It was brought to the attention of the assessee

that the complete details as requested by summons/ notices/letters, referred to

earlier, were not available in these accounts and documents as the Balance Sheet

and Profit and Loss account have only net value under different heads.

However, in order to carry the investigations forward the material available with

the AO was taken into consideration by the DDIT. The DDIT Unit IV(3) vide

3 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

his letter dated 20.08.2014 elaborately discussed and addressed their objections

regarding relevance of the information called for by him. He also identified

seven issues and the assessee was requested to furnish the information within

seven days of receipt of the letter.

20.08.2014 was furnished vide letter dated 01.09.2014. However, no

information was furnished in respect of queries raised vide para 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7

of the said letter. Instead of furnishing the information the assessee questioned

the jurisdiction of the office of the DDIT in seeking the said information on the

ground that the said transaction had no bearing on any provision of the Income

Tax Act. This objection was comprehensively discussed and addressed by the

DDIT (Inv), Unit IV(3) vide his letter dated 23.09.2014. The DDIT(Inv) also

raised four specific issues on which information was sought. To enable the

assessee to furnish the information, summons u/s 131 (lA) was also issued on

23.09.2014 directing the assessee to furnish information as called for vide letter

dated 23.09.2014 on 01.10.2014. On the date fixed for compliance of the said

summons by the DDIT(Inv) Unit IV(3) New Delhi i.e. on 01.10.2014, the

assessee failed to furnish any details or documents. Instead, through a letter

dated 30.09.2014 it was submitted by the assessee that the details sought from it

were not relevant for the purpose of the income Tax Act. The DDIT (Inv) vide

4 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

his office letter dated 22.10.2014 comprehensively addressed their concerns and

once again requested the assessee to furnish the details/ documents as asked for

vide summons dated 23.09.2014 which were required by him for the purpose of

investigation in the cases of the persons mentioned in the said summons. Vide

the said letter dated 22.10.2014, it was made categorically clear by the

DDIT(Inv) Unit-IV(3) New Delhi that the persistent refusal to provide the

details/ documents may tantamount to abetting tax evasion and any further

refusal to submit the requisite details/ documents shall be construed as an act of

willful and conscious abetment and shall be visited by appropriate penal and

other provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was allowed further time

till 03.11.2014 for submitting the requisite details/ documents.

DDIT(Inv) Unit-IV(3) New Delhi seeking a copy of the approval obtained by

him from the Director of Income Tax in accordance with the provisions of

Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act whereas it was called upon to give

evidence in exercise of powers under section 131 (lA) of the Income Tax Act in

the matter of investigation in the cases of Share Holders, Directors and

Members of M/s Young Indian. The details sought in the case also remained

only partially complied. In the interest of natural justice one more opportunity

was provided to the assessee vide office letter dated 10.11.2014 whereby the

5 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

assessee was also required to show cause as to why penalty proceedings u/s

272A(l)( c) should not be initiated against it for not complying with all the

terms of the summons dated 23.09.2014 issued u/s 131 (lA) of the Income tax

Act. On this occasion too, instead of availing the opportunity to comply with

the summons u/s 131(lA) of the Income Tax Act dated 23.09.2014 or showing

cause for failure in submitting the details/ documents sought vide the said

summons, the assessee vide letter dated 17.11.2014 resorted to the refrain that

the motive behind seeking the information was purely witch - hunt and that it

was not mentioned by the DDIT (Inv) in the show cause notice dated

10.11.2014 that which part of the purported notice u/s 131 (lA) of the Income

Tax Act was not complied by it. The Addl. DIT (Inv.) noted from the records

that the information called for vide summons dated 23.09.2014 was not

furnished by the assessee.

provisions of sub-section 4 of section 272A of the Income Tax Act, the assessee

was provided an opportunity by the Addl. DIT (Inv.) to show cause as to why

penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, computed @ Rs.10,000/- for

each default should not be levied upon it for its aforesaid failure. The assessee

filed its reply vide letter dated 21.12.2014 in which it contended that the reply

6 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

filed by it before the DDIT (Inv) vide its letter dated 02.12.2014 should be

treated as its reply to the said notice.

with the explanation given by the assessee. He observed that the assessee has

still not furnished any details as called for vide summons issued on 23.09.2014.

The explanation of the assessee that the law does not provide for any penalty for

failure of compliance with the summons issued u/s 131(1A) of the I.T. Act was

rejected by him on the ground that the provisions of section 131(1A) provides

that for the purpose of making any enquiry or investigation it shall be competent

for Assistant Director or Deputy Director to exercise the powers conferred

under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, any non-

compliance shall attract the penalty provisions for not complying with section

131(1) of the I.T. Act.

identical to the issues raised in the complaint filed by Dr. Swamy and is

presently pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and any adjudication

made by the Department in that regard will result in prejudging the issues

pending in the Courts is concerned, the ADIT (Investigation) held that this

contention is not tenable. According to him, the enquiries by the Income Tax

Department are necessary to verify whether such transactions involve any

7 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

income tax avoidance/evasion. He observed that it is the bounden duty of the

Revenue to ascertain the facts when there are public allegations of revenue loss

irrespective of the source of allegation as much as it is of the responsible

assessee to share the details with the Revenue willingly. He further noted that

waiting for the outcome of the court cases may render income tax cases fruitless

due to limitation of time. Rejecting the explanation given by the assessee, the

ADIT (Investigation) levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(c) of the I.T.

Act.

the penalty order, the penalty is levied for the alleged failure to furnish

information called for vide summons dated 23.09.2014. Para 8 of the penalty

order refers to four specific items of information, which are allegedly not

provided by the assessee and it is in respect of these four details that the penalty

order has been passed. The said four details, serially numbered A, B, C and D

are the ones that are mentioned in para 5 of the summons, issued u/s 131(lA)

dated 23.09.2014. The assessee submitted that there can be no basis to suspect

that any income has been concealed or likely to be concealed. Indeed, such

suspicion cannot be the only basis for issue of summons u/s 131(lA). Since all

the details were available with the Tax Department, the question of any

suspicion cannot arise and therefore, despite the details being available with the

8 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

Department, calling for the information once again u/s 131(lA) is without any

basis for such suspicion and therefore, to that extent calling for such information

itself is without the authority of the law. Regarding various details, it was

submitted that the question of once again furnishing the same does not arise.

Further, the query raised at Sr. No. C, regarding relationship of shareholders

with the company, is incapable of being answered. The details called for in

respect of pricing of shares amongst the shareholders from the Company are

details which are beyond the powers conferred u/s 131(lA) of the Act and

therefore, that cannot be the basis for levy of penalty for alleged non-

compliance of such requirements. The monies received from issue of new

shares are already part of the Audited Balance Sheet available with the Tax

Department and therefore, when such details are available, there is no

justification whatsoever for issue of summons u/s 131(lA). Having regard to the

fact that the relevant transaction has been disclosed in the notes to accounts filed

with the return of income, no basis survives for any suspicion that any income is

concealed or is likely to be concealed. It was submitted that in view of such

explicit disclosure, there is no room for suspicion and therefore, in the absence

of any suspicion, the jurisdiction u/s, 131(lA) is not in existence. The assessee

reiterated the submissions that the information called for lacks 'relevance' and

expressed its outburst that the information called for is not for the purpose of I.T

9 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

Act but in furtherance of certain proceedings initiated by political rivals of

assessee’s shareholders outside the income tax law. It was submitted that

contention of the assessee that the enquiry is of fishing nature, de hors the

provisions of the I.T Act gets fortified by the fact that ever since enquiries were

initiated, several details have already been submitted. Several other details are

available with the Assessing Officer and in public domain. However, no

assessment of any significant nature was made on the assessee for any alleged

concealment of income. If therefore, there was any relevance of the details

called for to the assessee’s taxable income, by now, some proceedings would

have been initiated for taxing such income. In absence of any such proceedings,

the contention of the assessee that the information is not relevant for the purpose

of assessee’s taxable income gets reinforced. Besides, there is every evidence of

correlation between the date on which the Ld. ADIT called for the details from

time to time from the assessee and the dates on which the hearings were fixed in

trial courts/High Courts in the on-going litigation where the political rivals of

the assessee’s shareholders have filed criminal proceedings against them. This

clear cut co-relation of dates demonstrates that the details are being fished out

by the political rivals for creating evidence in those cases and thereby serving

their political purpose.

10 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) applies only in case of non-compliance by any person

"to whom summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131 .... ". It was

submitted that there is no penalty prescribed for non-compliance with summons

issued u/s. 131(lA) of the Act. It was argued that in absence of any penalty

provided in the Law in respect of summons u/s. 131(lA), levy of penalty u/s.

272A is bad in law and therefore ought to be deleted. The assessee submitted

that section 131(lA) was introduced by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1975

and the Board's circular explaining such insertion states that powers u/s. 131(1)

are not available to ADIT and that the law is amended so that the ADIT will be

able to exercise these powers in case where there are reasons to suspect that any

income has been concealed or likely to be concealed by any person even though

no proceedings with respect to such persons is pending before him. Referring

to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jamnadas

Madhavji vs. ITO, 162 ITR 331 it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in

the said decision has held that powers u/s. 131(1) cannot be exercised when

there are no proceedings pending before the income tax officer. Insertion of

section 131(lA) nullifies the effect of that decision, thereby empowering certain

authorities to issue summons even in absence of pending proceedings. Clearly,

11 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

therefore, the provisions of section 131(lA) are mutually exclusively from the

provisions of section 131(1) in as much as:

a) authorities mentioned under the two sub-sections are different; and b) the powers mentioned in sub-section (1) can be invoked only when proceedings are pending before the relevant authorities whereas the powers under sub-section (lA) can be invoked even where there are no proceedings pending before the concerned authorities.

I.T. Act is illegal and bad in law and hence should be deleted.

by the assessee and upheld the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 272A(1)(c) for

non-compliance of summons dated 23.09.2014 by observing as under :-

“8. I have gone through the penalty order, grounds of the appeal and the submissions made by the assessee. It is observed that the penalty order u/s.272A of the I.T Act is quite detailed and addresses all the issues and objections raised by the assessee during proceedings in investigation wing and the appellate proceedings where the same objections are reiterated. The assessee's contention that it felt that the summons issued u/s. 131(1A) was without any basis or jurisdiction and that the question of suspicion does not arise as all details were available with the tax department or the MCA database or anybody else, are not tenable. The assessee cannot sit in the chair of the investigator and decide as to what could be the relevant information for the Income Tax purpose and what could be not. Despite the show cause given which very clearly stated that in case of non compliance, penal recourse shall be taken, "the assessee persisted in not providing the details on its own ground that it does not think that the information called for was either relevant or reasonable or justified. Even if the information was available with other public agencies or other Income Tax authorities, what was simply required was that a copy of the same could have been given in compliance which was not done. I do not deem it fit to comment or adjudicate on the contention of the assessee that the summons were merely for witch hunt or had any political angle to it in relation to the case filed in the High Court by one Mr. Swamy. This appears to be mere conjuncture and guessing and assumption by the assessee and baseless allegation on the intention of the Department and cannot

12 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

be entertained in absence of any evidence. That there was non-compliance to summons willfully is clear. 9. Coming to the issue of applicability of section 272A for non compliance of section 131 (1A), I am inclined to concur with the Addl. Director of Income (Inv). Section 131(1A) provides that for the purposes of making any enquiry or investigation it shall be competent for Assistant Director or Deputy Director to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section(1). Thus section 131(1A) does not provide any fresh power of issuing summons and instead the powers provided u/s. 131(1) are used. Hence any non-compliance shall attract the penalty provisions for not complying with section 131(1). The section 131(1A) clearly states that “…..for the purpose of making any enquiry or investigation relating thereto, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section 1 on the income tax authorities referred to in that sub section .... ". This clearly implies that the powers of section 131(1A) are derived from the powers of 131 and hence the same penalty u/s 272A shall be levied as for the non compliance of summons u/s. 131(1). It is improbable that the legislation would have no intention to levy any penalty in case of non compliance u/s. 131(1A) which would in effect leave that section without any penal provision. In view of the above discussion, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 272A(1) for non compliance of summons dated 23.09.2014 is confirmed.”

before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :-

“GROUND I: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 36, New Delhi ("CIT(A)") erred in upholding the action of the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit-4, New Delhi ("ADIT") in levying penalty u/s. 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") of Rs.10,000/-, even though the said order was passed without any jurisdiction. 2. She failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. There is no penalty prescribed for the alleged non-compliance with summons issued u/s. 131(1A) of the Act; b. Penalty u/s. 272A(1)(c) applies only in case of non-compliance by any person "to whom summons is issued under sub-section (1) of section 131" and not sub-section (1A); c. The provisions of section 131(1A) are mutually exclusive from the provisions of section 131(1) inasmuch as: a. authorities mentioned under the two sub-sections are different; and b. the powers mentioned in sub-section (1) can be invoked only when proceedings are pending before the relevant authorities whereas the powers under sub-section (1A) can be invoked even where there are no proceedings pending before the concerned authorities;

13 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

d. Accordingly, section 131(1A) provides fresh power of issuing summons which are not in section 131(1). 3. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied u/s. 272A of the Act in respect of summons issued u/s. 131(1A) is bad in law and ought to be deleted; WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even on merits, there was no non-compliance with the summons issued u/s. 131(1A) and accordingly, there was no case of levying penalty u/s. 272A(1)(c). 2. She failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. The details called for by the ADIT were already filed/available with the Tax Department and accordingly, there was no basis to suspect that any income has been concealed or is likely to be concealed, which is the only basis for issue of summons u/s. 131(1A); b. In absence of any valid ground for suspicion, the details called for are beyond the purview of Section 131(1A) and thus, the question of levy of penalty for any alleged non-furnishing of data does not arise. c. Besides, the details called for in the summons lack relevance for the purpose of the Act. The details called for were not for assessing the income of the Appellant in any manner, and hence such enquiries were beyond jurisdiction conferred u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. Consequently, penalty levied for alleged failure to comply with such summons also ought to be deleted. 3. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the penalty levied u/s. 272A of the Act ought to be deleted. GROUND III: The Appellant craves leave to add to, amends and / or alter the above ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

CIT(A). Referring to page 22 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the

Bench to the show-cause notice which is due to alleged non-compliance to

summons u/s 131(1A) of the I.T. Act and not to non-compliance of any summon

u/s 131 of the I.T. Act. Referring to the provisions of section 131(1) and the

provisions of section 131(1A), he submitted that the penalty provisions under

the above sections are different. As per the provisions of section 131(1), the

14 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc can be exercised only

when any proceedings are pending before the Income Tax Authorities.

However, as per the provisions of section 131(1A), this power can be exercised

even if no proceedings are pending before the Income Tax Authorities.

Referring to the provisions of section 272A(1)(c), he submitted that the section

provides penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, furnish

information, returns or statements, allow inspection, etc. u/s 131(1) of the I.T.

Act. However, no penalty has been prescribed for non-compliance to provisions

of section 131(1A) of the I.T. Act. Relying on various decisions, he submitted

that the provisions of section 131(1) and 131(1A) has been held to be different.

Therefore, in absence of any provision for levy of penalty for non-compliance to

the provisions of section 131(1A) penalty u/s 272A of the I.T. Act, 1961 cannot

be levied.

u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a non-profit organization. The 12AA

certificate issued to the assessee earlier was surrendered in assessment year

2016-17. He submitted that most of the information called for are available

either in the records of the Department or available in the Website of the

Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Therefore, there was no relevance of calling for

the details again from the assessee. He submitted that calling for the

15 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

information u/s 131(1A) itself is bad in law to the extent it is required for some

other purpose is abuse of the provisions of law. Since the assessee had already

intimated before the ADIT (Investigation) that most of the information called

for by him are already available in the records of the Department or in the

Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, therefore, there was a reasonable

cause on the part of the assessee for non-submissions of the same. Therefore,

no penalty u/s 272A is leviable.

of Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. vs. J.B. Panchal, ITO reported in 162 ITR 331, ld.

counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 10 of the order

and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the

provisions of section 131(1A) and provisions of section 131(1) are different.

State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab reported in (2004) 12 SCC 673, he drew

the attention of the Bench to para 96 of the order and drew the attention of the

Bench to the meaning of the words “under” and “in accordance with”.

Referring to the said paragraph, he submitted that the phrase “in accordance

with” in the context implies similarity or harmony but not identity.

Bijaya Kumar Agarwala Etc vs. State of Orissa reported in 1996 SCC (5) 1, he

16 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

drew the attention of the Bench to page 5 of the order and submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that if two possible and

reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean

towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than

the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the

meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the

intention of the Legislature.

Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT reported in 220 ITR 67, he drew the

attention of the Bench to para 11 of the said order and submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the question and held that no revised

return can be filed under sub-section (5) of section 139 in a case where the

return was filed u/s 139(4). It was held that it would not be reasonable to

construe the said clause as indirectly conferring a right which is not conferred

directly by sub-section (5) of section 139 of the I.T. Act. He submitted that

when no provisions for levy of penalty for non-compliance of provisions of

section 131(1A) is provided, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) could not have held that

the penalty can be levied in view of provisions of section 131(1) of the I.T. Act.

Contemporary Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2004) 2 SOT 108, he

17 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

submitted that the Tribunal has canceled the penalty levied u/s 272A on the

ground that although the assessee failed to submit TDS return within prescribed

time, however, in view of the bona-fide conduct of the assessee in deducting

and depositing tax into Government treasury and default, if any, being clearly

technical and venial in nature, no penalty was leviable. He accordingly

submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 272A by the ADIT (Investigation) which

has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) should be deleted.

Referring to the provisions of section 131(1A), he submitted that for the purpose

of making enquiry or investigation relating thereto it shall be competent for the

officer to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the Income

Tax Authorities referred to in that sub-section. Therefore, the contention of the

ld. counsel for the assessee that no penalty provisions has been prescribed for

violation to provisions of section (1A) is not correct.

deliberately did not furnish the requisite details as called for by the ADIT

(Investigation). There was no reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for

non-submission of those details. The assessee cannot escape from the clutches

of law by simply stating that all details are either available in the records of the

Income Tax Department or in the Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

18 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

He accordingly submitted that when complete information was not furnished in

compliance to the summons issued u/s 131(1A), penalty was rightly confirmed

by the ld. CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be

upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

the orders of the authorities below and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the

assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We

find the penalty of Rs.10,000/- was levied by the ADIT (Inv.) under the

provisions of section 272A(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee deliberately

and without any valid reasons failed to furnish the following details as called for

vide summons u/s 131(1A) dated 23.09.2014 :-

“A. The details of persons who at any time during the Financial year 2010-11 was a founder member, ordinary member, Patron member, Member of the Managing committee, Director or Manager or M/s Young Indian. B. Complete details of subsequent transfer of shares of M/s Young Indian made by the 2 founder members who were holding 550 shares each (Certificates bearing numbers 1 and 2) allotted to them at the time of incorporation, which as per the statutory filings made by the company to the MCA was effected on 22.01.2011, Please explain with documentary evidences, the entire procedure involved in the transfer of such shares, the method of arriving at the fair price of such shares by M/s Young Indian in accordance with the terms of clause 4.11 of the Articles of Association of M/s Young Indian and the fair price so determined or determinable. Also provide the details of payments received by M/s Young Indian from the incoming members and details of disbursal of fair price, received from the incoming members, if any, and made to the outgoing share holders / founder members. Also provide the details of payment received from the founder members for the share allotted to them by M/s Young Indians. C. Complete details of fresh allotment of 3900 equity shares made on 22.1.2011 as per the statutory filings made before MCA, the relationship of each new share holder with M/s Young Indian clearly specifying the nature of such relationship, the share issue price, the method of determining the issue price, copies of share applications the details of payments made along with the share applications and

19 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

payments, if any, made thereafter. Also provide the complete details of credit to the bank account of M/s Young Indians of such share capital received from the new share applicants and share holders. D. Fair value of the new shares as on the date of issue. In this regard, also provide the complete details of the assets of M/s Young Indian as on 22.01.2011. These details may also be provided in respect of the subsidiary of M/s Young Indian.”

which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission

of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 131(1) and

provisions of section 131(1A) are different and since the provisions of section

272A(1)(c) prescribe levy of penalty for non-compliance to provisions of

section 131(1) only and since there is no provision in the Income Tax Act for

levy of penalty for non-compliance under the provisions of section 131(1A) of

the I.T. Act, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty

so levied by the ADIT (Investigation). It is also his submission that since all the

details as called for by the ADIT (Investigation) are already available either in

the records of the Income Tax Department or in the Website of the Ministry of

Corporate Affairs, therefore, there was a reasonable cause on the part of the

assessee for non-submissions of the same as those details would have gone to

the hands of the political opponents for mis-utilize of the same.

assessee. So far as argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that provisions

of section 131(1) and 131(1A) are different, there is no dispute to the same.

20 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

However, as per the provisions of section 131(1A) for the purpose of making

any enquiry or investigation relating thereto it shall be competent for the officer

to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the Income Tax

Authorities referred to in that sub-section. Therefore, the provisions of section

131(1A) has to be read along with the provisions of section 131(1) of the I.T.

Act. Therefore, the consequences for failure to furnish the requisite details will

be the same as prescribed u/s 272A(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

assessee are concerned, the same in our opinion are distinguishable and not

applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the decision in the case of

Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. (supra) is concerned, the issue was where assessment

proceedings have been concluded or have become time-barred in respect of

relevant assessment years and thus no proceedings are pending, whether

summons u/s 131(1) can be issued against the assessee by concerned officers

mentioned in section 131(1) of the I.T. Act. Here issue is different i.e. levy of

penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) for non-compliance of the provisions of section 131A.

Therefore, this decision is not applicable.

has mainly relied on the phrase used “in accordance with” and not “under”

which is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

21 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

concerned, it was a case u/s 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. We fail to

understand as to how the provisions of that law can be applied to the present

proceedings for non-compliance to provisions of section 131(1A) of the I.T.

Act.

is concerned, the issue was whether in a case of return filed u/s 139(4), a revised

return contemplated by section 139(5) can be filed. Therefore, the facts of this

case are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this

decision is not applicable.

(supra) is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has held that the conduct of the

assessee was bona-fide. However in the present case there is deliberate and

complete defiance to the summons issue u/s 131(1A) of the I.T. Act. Therefore,

this decision is also not applicable.

22 ITA No.5303/Del/2016

prejudice would have been caused to the assessee by submitting the details as called for by the ADIT (Investigation), as per the summons u/s 131(1A) if those details are already available in the records of the I.T. Department or in the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The conduct of the assessee in the instant case, in our opinion, is not at all bona-fide. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee on this issue. In view of the above discussion, the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied u/s 272A(1)(c) is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. 32. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30-08-2018. Sujeet Copy of order to: - 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT 4) The CIT(A) 5) The DR, I.T.A.T., New Delhi By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, New Delhi