BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

The Mumbai bench of ITAT in a recent decision in the case of Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT [TS-5465-ITAT-2017(MUMBAI)-O] also dealt with this aspect. The taxpayer had not offered Director's fees and income from short term capital gains to tax in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings when these incomes were picked up by the tax officer, the taxpayer admitted earning of the incomes and filed a revised computation of income. Based on this finding, the tax officer mentioned in the assessment order that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently the tax officer issued a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the reason for penalty was not mentioned. The taxpayer filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which ruled in favour of the revenue. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the KHC in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), the CIT(A) ruled in favour of the revenue. Aggrieved the taxpayer preferred an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT after observing the facts of the case held that the tax officer had recorded satisfaction in the assessment order in relation to invoking penalty provisions. The tax officer had applied his mind while detailing the reasons for initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order. Accordingly, not mentioning the reasons in the penalty notice cannot invalidate the penalty proceedings.

Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd vs ACIT(OSD) Central Range-s, Mumbai on 21 March 2017 has stated As there is no declaration of law which may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of India in the case of CITVersus SSA'S Emerald Meadows dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court, vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. The judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra) is still having a binding force on us. Thus, with utmost regards to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) we are bound to follow the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra). Our view also find support from a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhawal K. Jain vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.996/Mum/2014) order dated 30/09/2016. With these observations, the argument of Id. counsel of the assessee on the legal/technical ground is rejected. Thus, all these four appeals are, therefore, dismissed and the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is affirmed.

Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) wherein it was held as under:

We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never Page | 3

The assessee filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP observing the following: Section 271(1)(c), read with section 32, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment year 1994-95 - Assessee-company, engaged in business of leasing of assets, purchased air pollution control equipment from company, PE and leased back same to company, PIL - During search conducted upon premises of PE, Assessing Officer found that no such equipment was supplied by PE to assessee and purchase and lease back transaction entered into between assessee and PIL was not a genuine transaction; rather it was simply a case of providing finance to PIL by assessee and, therefore, assessee was not entitled to depreciation on such equipment - High Court by impugned order held that by claiming depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied upon assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 12 and 13] [In favour of revenue]

Therefore, it is submitted that service of notice u/s.274 for initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, would constitute valid initiation of penalty proceedings and the case may be heard on merits.”

In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rules of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in any straight-jacket formula. For sustaining a complaint of failure of the Principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed. The issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Dhanraj Mills Pvt.Ltd. (supra) followed the decision rendered by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Kaushalya (supra) and chose not to follow decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake in the notice would not invalidate penalty proceedings.

In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct. One of the parties before the group of Assessees before the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) was an Assessee by name M/s.Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Co., in ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 which was an appeal by the revenue. The Tribunal held that on perusal of the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is clear that it is a standard proforma used by the Assessing Authority. Before issuing the notice the inappropriate words and paragraphs were neither struck off nor deleted. The Assessing Authority was not sure as to whether she had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had either concealed its income or has furnished inaccurate details. The notice is not in compliance with the requirement of the particular section and therefore it is a vague notice, which is attributable to a patent non application of mind on the part of the Assessing authority. Further, it held that the Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 69 of the Act being undisclosed investment. In the appeal, the said finding was set-aside. But addition was sustained on a new ground, that is under valuation of closing stock. Since the Assessing Authority had initiated penalty proceedings based on the additions made Page | 6

In the case of M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017 referred to in the written note given by the learned DR, which is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished, the same proposition as was laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra) appears to have been reiterated, as is evident from the extracts furnished in the written note furnished by the learned DR before us.

In the case of Trishul Enterprises ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014, the Mumbai Bench of ITAT followed the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra).

In the case of Mahesh M.Gandhi (supra) the Mumbai ITAT the ITAT held that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of that case because the AO in the assessment order while initiating penalty proceedings has held that the Assessee had concealed particulars of income and merely because in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act, there is no mention whether the proceedings are for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income, that will not vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case there is no whispher in the order of assessment on this aspect. We have pointed out this aspect in the earlier part of this order. Hence, this decision will not be of any assistance to the plea of the revenue before us. Even otherwise this decision does not follow the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) in as much as the ratio laid down in the said case was only with reference to show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. The Hon’ble Court did not lay down a proposition that the defect in the show cause notice will stand cured if the intention of the charge u/s.271(1) (c ) is discernible from a reading of the Assessment order in which the penalty was initiated.