DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JALAN CARBONS & CHEMICALS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-10, Kolkata dated 16.11.2015 for AY 2010-11 deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

Briefly stated facts as observed by the AO are that the assessee in its return of income disclosed a total income of Rs. Nil on 04.10.2010. According to AO, the assessee paid taxes under MAT on a book profit of Rs.94,41,769/- but assessment order was passed on 26.03.2013 assessing the total income at Rs.1,84,12,290/- under normal provision of the Act. In the assessment order the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of disclosure made by the assessee pursuant to unearthing of bogus loss claimed on forex derivatives amounting to Rs.1,71,10,249/-. Before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings the assessee contended that they had made a voluntary disclosure so no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income can be levied on the assessee. On examination of the assessee’s argument the AO stated that assessee had not made any voluntary disclosure out of its sweet will and imposed

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice u/s. 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 26.03.2013 served on the assessee wherein we note that the AO has not struck down the limb of charge/default i.e. ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ for which the penalty was initiated against the assessee which according to the Ld. AR, make the notice defective and, therefore, the notice was invalid and penalty levied is not sustainable in the eyes of law and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and pointed out that against the said order of Hon’ble High Court the revenue preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. On the other hand, Ld. CIT, DR vehemently opposed the said plea of the assessee and contended that it is clearly discernible that a tick mark has been put on one of the faults specified therein so, if the assessee had any grievance he should have taken up the matter with the AO during penalty proceedings and get it clarified. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, there is no question of invalidity of the notice. He, therefore, relied on the following decisions: i) Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal), ii) Jaysons Infrastructure India Private Ltd. Vs. ITO TS 5873 ITAT 2017 (Bangalore), iii) Trishul Enterprises Vs. DCIT * 385/Mum/2014 for AYs. 2006-07 & 2007-08 dt. 10.02.2017, iv) M/s. Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT judgment dated 22.08.2017, v) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 and vi) Decision of ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No. 820/JP/2016 in Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. dt. 29.09.2017. And the Ld. DR has filed his written submission before us stating that the penalty cannot be struck down for merely a procedural lapse like what happened in this case.

In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.