AMBADAS K. LAVHALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1292/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 August 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record valid satisfaction and was ambiguous in specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was levied. The penalty order was quashed on technical grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to show capital gains from the sale of a property, leading to an addition by the AO. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the AO's satisfaction is ambiguous and lacks specificity regarding the limb of the section invoked.

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(2)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, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Chakrapani
Hearing: 06.08.2018Pronounced: 14.08.2018

आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This is the appeal filed by assessee against the order of CIT (Appeals)-3, Pune, dated 16.02.2016 for the A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

Assessee raised the following core grounds on merit and the same are extracted here as under : “1. The Appellant was under a bonafide belief that investing the capital gain into the new house property is exempt from capital gain tax. As such, the said income was not offered to tax. There was no any malafide intention to furnish any inaccurate particulars of income or hide something. 2. However, the Ld. AO, without appreciating the facts of the case, passed the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the ITA, 1961 on 27-06-2011, levying a penalty of Rs.7,02,313/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.”

2 ITA No.1292/PUN/2016 Shri Ambadas K. Lavhale

2.1 Assessee also raised the following additional grounds on legal issue

and the same read as under :

“1. The order of penalty passed by the Ld. AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is without jurisdiction as the mandatory conditions for invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been complied with and the notice issued u/s.274 of the Act is an invalid notice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The order of penalty passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law as the penalty was initiated under one limb (i.e.) furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and penalty was levied under another limb (i.e.) under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.

Briefly stated relevant facts include that the assessee is an

individual and filed the return of income on 31-07-2008 declaring total

income of Rs.11,92,695/-. As per Form 16, assessee declared the

income from salary at Rs.13,42,695/- after allowing exemption u/s.10 of

the I.T. Act. During the year under consideration, AO noticed that

assessee sold an immovable property situated at Goregaon (W), Mumbai

and failed to show capital gains from the said property. Eventually, the

AO made addition of Rs.23,47,700/- on the same under the head short

term capital gain. Penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing

inaccurate particulars of income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of

Rs.7,02,313/- was imposed on the assessee. In the First Appellate

proceedings, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved

with the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that there is delay of 28 days in

filing the appeal before the Tribunal and referred to the affidavit filed by

the assessee. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the assessee as

well as his brother, who was looking after the tax matters of the assessee

were out of station. Further, the order of CIT(A) was misplaced and

hence the delay in filing the appeal.

3 ITA No.1292/PUN/2016 Shri Ambadas K. Lavhale

Considering the contents of the above affidavit, we are of the

opinion that the delay in filing of the appeal late by 28 days needs to be

condoned as there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within

the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay is condoned and the appeal is

taken up for adjudication in the following paragraphs.

5.

Further also, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring

to the additional grounds raised (legal in nature) submitted that this is a

case where the AO failed to record valid satisfaction at the time of

initiation as well as at the time of levying the penalty. Highlighting the

legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of

clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding

judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4

(Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the

case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565,

Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the AO is

unsustainable in law. In this regard, he brought our attention to the

assessment order as well as the penalty order highlighting the above

legal deficiencies. Ld. Counsel prayed for admitting the legal grounds as

no fresh facts are required to be investigated.

6.

Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of

AO/CIT(A).

7.

We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue.

On going through the facts of the case and the arguments of the Ld.

Counsel, we admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the

specific legal issue, i.e. recording of proper satisfaction by the AO. We

4 ITA No.1292/PUN/2016 Shri Ambadas K. Lavhale

perused the order of the AO and find that the AO initiated the penalty

proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for “furnishing inaccurate

particulars” whereas in the penalty order it was mentioned as “for

concealment and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”.

This manner of recording of satisfaction suggests the existence of

ambiguity in the mind of the AO with reference to the applicable limb of

clause (c). Therefore, we are of the opinion that considering the above

referred binding judgments such penalty order is unsustainable in law

legally. AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of

initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above

deliberation on this issue, we are of the opinion that the penalty order is

liable to be quashed on this legal issue. Thus, we set aside the order of

CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. Accordingly, the

additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed on

technical ground without going into the merits of the issue.

8.

Consequently, the adjudication of the grounds raised by the

assessee on merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the

relevant grounds on merits are dismissed as academic.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 14th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (िवकास अव�थी िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी डी. क�णाकरा राव क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) िवकास अव�थी िवकास अव�थी डी डी क�णाकरा राव क�णाकरा राव �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा सद�य

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 14th August, 2018. Satish

5 ITA No.1292/PUN/2016 Shri Ambadas K. Lavhale

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-3, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी बी बी” ब�च, बी 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy //

Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

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 →