SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The learned Commissioner (A) having failed to record the satisfaction as required under the provisions, the penalty proceedings were invalid and no penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act was exigible and thus the impugned penalty is liable to be cancelled.

Before us, learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) in all these assessment years would not survive because the show cause notice issued by the suffers from the defect on the account that the AO has not specifically pointed out whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Learned AR of the assessee has filed the respective copies of the show cause notice for all these four assessment years issued by the AO dated 28/12/2010 and submitted that the AO has not specified the grounds mentioned in sec. 271(1)(c) whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the show cause notice issued u/s 274 is a defective notice and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) deserves to be deleted. Learned AR of the assessee has also relied upon the decision dated 3/7/2015 of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Shri H.Lakshminarayana vs. ITO in to 996/Bang/2014 as well as in the case of M/s.Maganur Builders vs. ITO dated 11/6/2015 in ITA No.537/Bang/2010 and ITA Nos.1013 to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 5 of 15 submitted that the coordinate benches of this Tribunal by following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra), have held that the defect in the show cause notice u/s 274 cannot be said to be curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Thus, learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) would not survive in the case of the assessee when the show case notice issued u/s 274 is defective.

On the other hand the learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee itself has offered the undisclosed income then, it is not a case where the assessee needs any specific point to be explained or to meet out cause of levy of penalty but the concealment of income was an admitted fact as the assessee itself has offered in the return of income. Therefore, this alleged technical defect in the in the show cause notice u/s 274 is not relevant in the case of the assessee in hand. Thus, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that when the alleged defect is not relevant as the assessee has not disputed the addition in question as it was offered by the assessee itself, then, the validity of levy of penalty cannot be questioned.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. We find that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the IT Act dated 28/12/2010 the AO has given to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 6 of 15 the reason for initiation of the penalty as the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO has not specified the grounds on which he is proposing to initiate proceedings. An identical issue has been considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the existent of conditions stipulated in section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271. The existence of such conditions should be discernable from the assessment order or order of the appellate authority or the revisional authority. The Hon’ble High Court has observed in para.59 of the judgment that the person who is accused of conditions mentioned in sec. 271(1)(c) should be made known about the grounds on which the intent imposing of penalty on him as the sec.274 makes it clear that the assessee has a right to contest such proceeding and should have full opportunity to meet the case of the department and show that the conditions stipulated in section 271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. By observing the requirement of the conditions on which the AO proposed to impose the penalty be made known to the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court has held that in the absence of specifying that which condition is satisfied and the assessee is accused of the condition as mentioned in sec. 271, the assessee has not been given the proper opportunity to meet those grounds. The ITA Nos.1013 to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 7 of 15 penalty is to be imposed only on the ground that he is called upon to answer. Thus, it is not open to the authority at the time of imposing the penalty to impose penalty on a ground other than what the assessee was called upon to meet. Thus, by analysing the requirement of the provision, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the standard proforma without striking out the relevant clauses in the show cause notice will lead to inference of non- application of mind. We note that the Tribunal in the series of decisions has followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) and in the case of H.Lakshminarayan (supra) an identical issue was considered and decided by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in para.7 to 16 as under:

The Appellant begs to submit that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) is squarely applicable and therefore the impugned order of the authorities below is required to be set aside.” to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 8 of 15 8. The additional ground being a pure question of law which can be decided on the basis of facts available on record is admitted for adjudication keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC, 229 ITR 383 (SC).

We deem it appropriate to consider the objections raised by the assessee on the validity of the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act was defective for all the assessment years involved in these appeals.

On the above objections, we have heard the parties at length. A copy of the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act for the Assessment years involved in these appeals, is placed at pages 1 to 5 of the assessee’s paperbook, the same is given as Annexures-I to V to this order.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act does not specify as to whether penalty proceeding is being initiated for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for any other reason as irrelevant columns of the printed form of notice u/s. 274 have not been struck off by the AO.

The ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that notice u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Court has also held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb and find the assessee guilty in another limb is bad in law. It was submitted that in the present case, the aforesaid decision will squarely apply and all the orders imposing penalty have to be held as bad in law and liable to be quashed. to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 9 of 15 13. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherein the CIT(A) has expressed his opinion that the assessee was fully aware of the charge against him and he cannot take shelter on technical grounds.

We have heard the rival submissions. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) has laid down the following principles to be followed in the matter of imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authority, at the time of imposing penalty to impose penalty on the grounds other than what assessee was called upon to meet. Otherwise though the initiation of penalty proceedings may be valid and legal, the final order imposing penalty would offend principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 11 of 15 the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable.

The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in 292 ITR 11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind.”

The final conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was as follows: “63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under:- a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 12 of 15 b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessment Officer to initiate the proceedings because of the deeming provision contained in Section 1(B). h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. k) Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and has paid tax and interest that by itself would not be sufficient for the authorities either to initiate penalty proceedings or to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 13 of 15 impose penalty, unless it is discernible from the assessment order that, it is on account of such unearthing or enquiry concluded by authorities it has resulted in payment of such tax or such tax liability came to be admitted and if not it would have escaped from tax net and as opined by the assessing officer in the assessment order. l) Only when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the Assessing Authority. p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 14 of 15 principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings of assessment, it is independent and separate aspect of the proceedings. u) The findings recorded in the assessment proceedings in so far as "concealment of income" and "furnishing of incorrect particulars" would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.”

It is clear from the aforesaid decision that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. In our view, the aforesaid defect cannot be said to be curable u/s. 292BB of the Act, as the defect cannot be said to be a notice which is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled.”

Following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) as well as the to 1016/Bang/2015 Shri Narasimha Reddy. Page 15 of 15 decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of H.Lakshminarayana (supra), we hold that the orders of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all the assessment years are invalid for want of spelling out the specific grounds on which the penalty was sought to be imposed and consequently the penalty imposed is cancelled.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.