DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AGAM SARAN KHEMKA, KOLKATA

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Both these appeals filed by the revenue are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata dated 14.09.2015 for AY 2013-14. Since facts are common and grounds are identical we dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

4. The Ld. DR brought to our notice that in the very same group case of Manoj Beswal & Ors. the Tribunal had confirmed the levy of penalty and contended before us that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is mandatory and therefore, according to Ld. DR, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty by stating that the assessee did not had any ‘mens rea’ not to disclose the amount in question. According to him, penalty has to be mandatorily levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act on the undisclosed income found during search. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri Miraz D. Shah, supporting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) made contentions though taken up before the Ld. CIT(A) but has not been adjudicated on those averments, which the Ld. AR urges before us to consider while adjudicating the appeal of the Revenue. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the contentions which he is going to raise has been taken up before the AO also, however, according to Ld. Counsel, those legal arguments were not considered by the AO in the right perspective. The first contention of the Ld. AR is that since Sec. 271AAB of the Act is a penalty section it should be construed strictly, which we agree being it is a trite law that penalty provisions have to be strictly interpreted. Next contention of Ld. AR is that sec. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory because Parliament in its wisdom has used the word ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. So, according to him, it is the discretion bestowed upon the AO whether to initiate and impose penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act. We agree with the said contention of Ld. AR because when a similar issue was adjudicated by ITAT Lucknow (the author of this order was a member of the Bench) in Sandeep Chandak & Ors. Vs. CIT (2017) 55 ITR (Trib) 209 and 2017 (5) TMI 675-ITAT-Lucknow in 417 and 418/LKW/2016 dated 30.01.2017 while adjudicating a case where penalty was levied under section 271AAB of the Act it was held that the provisions of Sec. 271AAB of the Act are not mandatory, which means that penalty need not be levied in each and every case wherever the assessee has made default as stated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word “may” not “shall”. “May” cannot be equated with “shall” especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word “may” in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision.”

Therefore, the 2nd ground of Revenue fails and we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary. Before proceeding further, we note that the ex parte order passed by the Coordinate Bench relied upon by Ld. DR, Manoj Beswal, supra, have been recalled in MA Nos. 218 to 220/Kol/2017 dated 12.01.2018 by observing as under: “By virtue of these miscellaneous applications, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in 1475&1476/Kol/2015 in the hands of Amit Agarwal, Madan Lal Beswal and Manoj Beswal respectively for the assessment year 2013-14 on the ground that notice was not served on the assessee for the hearing and on certain factual error that had crept in the order of the Tribunal. The first preliminary objection raised by the Ld. AR was that the notice of hearing was not served on the assessee for the hearing scheduled on 06.11.2017 and hence, the assessee could not be present on the said date by way of personal appearance. The second objection raised by the Ld. AR was that the Tribunal had stated in para 9 of its order that the assessee himself had accepted that he is engaged in commodities trading business and therefore mandated to maintain books of accounts in terms of section 44AA of the Act and thereby inferring that the assessee had reported the profit from commodities trading business under the head “income from business or profession”. Based on this crucial finding, the Tribunal had concluded that since the transaction of commodities trading had not been entered by the assessee in his books of accounts as on the date of search on 01.08.2012 and thereby it takes the character of undisclosed income for which penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is exigible. In this regard, we find that the Ld. AR drew our attention to the computation of the total income wherein the assessee had offered income from commodity trading only under the head income from other sources. We also find that the Ld. AO had also specifically stated in the body of the assessment order vide column no. 10 that the assessee is having only salary income and income from other sources. We find that due to the absence of the assessee at the time of hearing this particular fact had escaped the attention of the Tribunal. On perusal of the fact available on record, we find that the finding recorded by this Tribunal in para 9 of its order dated 10.11.2017 that the assessee is mandated to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA of the Act is factually incorrect and deserves to be rectified. This mistake of primary fact had lead to a conclusion of upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Hence, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid mistake of primary fact rightly pointed out by the ld. AR , we deem it fit to recall the orders of this Tribunal dated 10.11.2017 in the case of aforesaid assessees.”

In the aforesaid scenario, the legal position is that an order which has been recalled for de novo adjudication, is no order in the eyes of law and so it cannot be treated as a precedent. Hence, the reliance placed by the Ld. DR in respect of assessee’s in the same group concern cases as decided by the Tribunal no longer survives and cannot be treated as covered against the assessee.

(3) The Board may, having regard to the nature of the business or profession carried on by any class of persons, prescribe, by rules, the books of account and other documents (including inventories, wherever necessary) to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), the particulars to be contained therein and the form and the manner in which and the place at which they shall be kept and maintained.

(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Board may prescribe, by rules, the period for which the books of account and other documents to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be retained.]”

So from a reading of the above provisions which clearly stipulates that assessee who are carrying on business or profession shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents which may enable the AO to compute the total income. We note that assessee in the statement of total income filed before the AO has shown income only under two heads (i) salary income (ii) income from other sources. We would like to reproduce the summary of total income of the assessee filed along with the return:

Income from Salary Rs. 45,57,600 Income from Other sources Rs.3,00,24,047 Rs.3,45,81,647 6. We note that the AO has accepted the aforesaid statement of total income filed before him without contesting the claim of the assessee as to whether the assessee’s claim of income other than from salary should be from “Income from Business”. The confusion that has arisen in this case, we note is on the misdirection of AO in the assessment proceedings wherein the assessment order of the assessee, the AO has observed “during search and seizure operation, Shri Manoj Beswal had made a consolidated disclosure of Rs.32 crore vide his disclosure petition. Out of this consolidated disclosure, the assessee owned up Rs. 3 cr. In the disclosure petition Shri Manoj Beswal it was stated that the source of such undisclosed income was out of commodity profit. It has been submitted that the amount has already been disclosed in his Income & Expenditure account for the AY 2013-14 under the head ‘Income out of Speculative Business from sale of commodities’. Verification of accounts confirms his claim.” This observation is flawed because, we note that AO got carried away by perusal of the “Income & Expenditure Account for AY 2013-14” submitted by the assessee before him, wherein it was shown in the income side that is right hand column as “Income from Speculative Business from sale of commodities” and left hand side column reflects the expenditure; and AO came to the conclusion that assessee has disclosed under the heading income out of Speculative Business from sale of commodities. The character of a receipt and the head under which it has to be taxed is not based on the nomenclature of receipt of income shown in Income & Expenditure Account. All the incomes of revenue nature will be posted in the right hand side column of ‘income’ in the Income & Expenditure Account and the description given therein cannot determine the head of income prescribed under chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, the observation of the AO in assessment order in the light of his action of accepting the statement of total income filed by the assessee along with return which without being contested, is erroneous, unless the AO was able to negate the claim of the assessee by bringing the income from commodity transactions as part of business income. It should be remembered that under the Income Tax Act 1961, the total income of an assessee/individual/company is chargeable to tax u/s. 4 of the Act. The total income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 14 of the Act lays down that for the purpose of computation, income of an assessee has to be classified under five heads. It is possible for an assessee/individual/company to have five different sources of income, each one of it will be chargeable to Income Tax Act. Profits and gains of business or profession is only one of the heads under which an assessee’s income is liable to be assessed to tax. If an assessee has not commenced business there cannot be any question of assessment of its profits and gains of business. That does not mean that until and unless the assessee commences its business, its income from any other source will not be taxed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It has been further held that when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not or whether certain deduction from that receipt is principles of law and not in accordance with accountancy practice. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the question as to whether a principal receipt is of the nature of income and falls within the charge of sec. 4 of the Act is a question of law which has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the provisions of the Act and interpretation of the term ‘income’ given in a large number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and Privy Council. After taking note of the Apex Court order as above, we note that the AO in the assessment order after having accepted the statement of total income (supra) and the return wherein the assessee has shown the income from commodities under the head “Income from Other Sources” cannot now after perusal of “Income & Expenditure Account” determine the character of transaction in the penalty proceedings as “Income from Business or Profession” which approach/action is erroneous. We note that the assessee in his statement of total income along with return has classified his income under two heads (i) Salary and (ii) from other sources and the income of Rs. 3 cr. as income from other sources, which we find the AO has not contested in the assessment order, has thus crystallized and the necessary inference drawn is that assessee an individual who was admittedly a salaried person engaged in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration (that too for the first time) in an activity from which he derived “Income from Other Sources” are not required to maintain books of account which are applicable only if the assessee was engaged in Business or Profession. However, we further note that the transactions which yielded income, the assessee had in fact maintained records from which the AO was able to deduce the true income and expenditure of the assessee. We note the AO in the assessment order has accepted the returned income comprising of income from salary and income from other sources by observing as under : “Total income assessed as per return Rs.3,44,65,120/-”.

And further we note that the AO had specifically stated in the body of the assessment order vide column no. 10 that the assessee is having only salary income and income from other sources. Thus from a perusal of the assessment order, it is not in dispute that assessee is not engaged in any business. And the AO cannot change the character of income in a derivative proceeding which is an off-shoot of assessment proceedings i.e. the penalty proceedings without contesting and making a finding against the claim of the assessee in the assessment order as discussed above.

According to the Ld. AR, from the facts and circumstances described above, since the assessee is not engaged in business or profession, he does not require to maintain the books of account as per sec. 44AA or sec. 44AA(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessee’s case falls in the second limb i.e. “or other documents” as stipulated u/s. 271AAB Explanation (c) (supra) which describes undisclosed income for the purposes of this section which is very important to adjudicate this issue. Therefore, the question is when the search took place, the assessee’s transactions (in this case, the speculative transaction) has been found to be recorded in the “other documents” which is (retrieved from the assessee’s accountant’s drawer) and based on that the assessee declared Rs. 3 cr. during search and later returned income of Rs. 3 cr. as income under the head “Income from Other Sources” which was accepted by the AO in toto. We note that since the income under question (Rs. 3 cr.) was in fact entered in the “other documents” maintained in the normal course relating to the AY 2013-14, which document was retrieved during search, hence, the amount of Rs. 3 cr. offered by the assessee does not fall in the ken of “undisclosed income” defined in Sec. 271AAB of the Act. So, Rs. 3 cr. which was commodity profit recorded in the other document maintained by the assessee which was retrieved during search cannot be termed as “undisclosed Income” in the definition given u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Since Rs. 3 cr. cannot be termed as “Undisclosed Income” as per sec. 271AAB of the Act, no penalty can be levied against the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the aforesaid reasoning rendered by us.”