M/S/ SUBARNA RICE MILL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2013 determining a demand of Rs.1,61,83,060/-. The assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), Asansol which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Against the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, who directed to make addition on undisclosed purchases of paddy @ 10% on estimate basis. Therefore, while giving effect to the order of ITAT, the revised income of the assessee computed by the AO at Rs.45,76,020/-, thus retaining an undisclosed income of M/s. Subarna Rice Mill, AY- 2010-11 Rs.38,50,183/-. According to AO, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the tune of Rs.45,76,023/- within the meaning of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, he was of the opinion that it is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.11,89,710/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notices issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 28.03.2013 before imposing penalty does not contain the specific charge against the assessee namely as to whether the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of income or having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A copy of the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act was filed before us and perusal of the same reveals that AO has not struck out the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice and, therefore, the show cause notice does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether the charge is of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The same is reproduced for the purpose of ready reference:

The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows in of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. The ld. Counsel also brought to M/s. Subarna Rice Mill, AY- 2010-11 our notice the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery in of 2014 dated 05.01.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty on defective show cause notice without specifying the charge against the assessee cannot be sustained. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of ITAT in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal.

Ld. DR vehemently opposed the submission of the Ld. AR and has cited various case laws to oppose the case laws suggested by the Ld. AR. We note that all the case laws cited before us by the Ld. DR has been dealt with elaborately by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT, for AY 2010-11 dated 01.12.2017, wherein the Tribunal has noted as under:

The learned DR relied on three decisions of Mumbai ITAT viz., (i) Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.3.2017; (ii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us.

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

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 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 under Section 69 of the Act, which was struck down by the Appellate Authority, the initiated penal proceedings, no longer exists. If the Appellate Authority had initiated penal proceedings on the basis of the addition sustained under a new ground it has a legal sanctum. This was not so in this case and therefore, on both the grounds the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority was set-aside by its order dated 9th April, 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue filed appeal before High Court. The Hon’ble High Court framed the following question of law in the said appeal viz., 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against the revenue on both the questions. Therefore the decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra) is of no assistance to the plea of the revenue before us.

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

In the case of Trishul Enterprises & 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 whisper 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.

From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Patna High Court is that 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 Tribunal Benches at Mumbai and Patna being subordinate to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Patna High Court are bound to follow the aforesaid view. The Tribunal Benchs at Bangalore have to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. As far as benches of Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the Assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) and other of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee has to be followed. We therefore prefer to follow the view expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra).

We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled.”

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.