SH. VISHAL SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-19), New Delhi dated 06.11.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering the submissions placed before him during the course of the appellate proceedings. He has also erred in not considering the decisions cited before him of various courts/ tribunals including decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income 1 Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty ought to have been completely deleted.

3. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal.

Relief claimed:

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty ought to have been completely deleted.

s alongwith Form No.

36. (Revised) and requested to accept the same, as the same is legal in nature, which read as under:-

“1. The Ld. ITO, Ward 36(2) erred in law by issuing defective penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)© of Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty proceedings are void ab initio.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not considering the submissions placed before him during the course of the appellate proceedings. He has also erred in not considering the decisions cited before him of various Courts/ Tribunals including decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty ought to have been completely deleted.

4. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal.

Relief Claimed- In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty ought to have been completely deleted.

- ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of ABR Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in dated 4.12.2017.

- ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in to 5790/Del/2014. 3 - Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginnig Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - Apex Court decision in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows in CC No. 11485/2016 dated 05.8.2016.

“…..it appears to me that you:-

* have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated…………… * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.30 AM/PM on 15.04.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity to being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271.”

8. After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 29.3.2014, I am of view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. I am also of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with Section 271 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271 of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law. My aforesaid view is supported by the following decisions:- i) “CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – 2015 (11) TMI 1620 – Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by 5 the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus 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 – decided in favour of assessee.” ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 – Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) – Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income – Decided in favour of assessee.” iii) ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, New Delhi decision dated 05.12.2017 in the case of Ashok Kumar Chordia vs. DCIT passed in to 5790/Del/2014 wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:-

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the Notice dated 26.3.2013 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at 11.30 AM on 26/04/2013 and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that “…..you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income…”. After perusing the notice dated 26.3.2013 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnish+ing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as well as in the penalty order dated 30.9.2013 AO has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, which is contrary to law. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) “CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – 2015 (11) TMI 1620 – 7 Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus 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 – decided in favour of assessee.” ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 – Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) – Karnataka High Court. Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income – Decided in favour of assessee.”

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities alongwith the relevant records available with us. Firstly, we have perused the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” We have also perused the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO for initiating the penalty and directing the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on --------200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income.

7.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) has given clear finding regarding the furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para no. 5.3.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

5.3.1 The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly establishes that the appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 26,50,500/- and did not declare in the return of income inspite of admitting a disclosure of Rs. 40,00,000/- 10 during survey. Thus, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the appellant tried to evade payment of taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, I hold that the AO was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO is upheld. This ground of appeal is rejected.

8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the AO has passed the assessment order wherein the AO has recorded his satisfaction on the page 2, 2nd para viz. “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on ---- ----200------ and issued a Show Cause to the assessee stating therein that why an order imposing the penalty of amount should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly, the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income, whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In our view the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- i) “CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – 2015 (11) TMI 1620 – Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court. Thus 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 – decided in favour of assessee.” ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – reported in 2016 (8) TMI 1145 – Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that High Court order confirmed (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (Supra) – Karnataka High Court.

Notice issued by AO under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income – Decided in favour of assessee.”

8.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute 14 and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.”