M/S. JAGRITI COAL & MINERALS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

ITA No.258/CTK/2016 is filed by the assessee against the order of

CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 23.3.2016 for the assessment year 2011-

12.

“i) disallowance of Rs.20,46,538/- under the head “lifting and loading expenses” ii) disallowance of Rs.3,76,976/- under the head “sundry creditors for lifting and loading expenses” iii) disallowance of Rs.93,106/- u/s.43B of the Act.

2 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

iv) levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C of Rs.39,764/-, Rs.3,27,312/- and Rs.10,559/-, respectively.

that before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A), the assessee

could not produce the evidences and documents and, therefore, the

disallowance and additions have been made by the Assessing Officer which

has been confirmed by the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has

filed the paper book containing additional evidence comprising of the

following:

i) Authorisation letter issued by Mr Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia to the General Manager of Mahanadi Coal Field Limited. ii) Copies of bills raised by mr Ananta Sahoo to M/s. Jagriti Coal & Minerals. iii) Copies of Bills raised by M/s. Jagriti Coal & Minerals to Mr Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia. 4. He prayed that same can be admitted in the interest of substantial

justice as the assessee was not in a position of these documents at the time

of assessment proceedings as well as at the time of appellate proceedings

before the CIT(A) and that these documents were acquired by the assessee

later on and same could not be filed before the Assessing Officer and the

CIT(A). He submitted that in the interest of rendering substantial justice,

the additional documents should be admitted.

3 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

additional evidences by the assessee before the Tribunal.

Therefore, the additional evidence filed by the assesse are admitted.

time, needs verification from the books of accounts of the assessee,

therefore, I am of the considered view that the matter should be restored

back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issue afresh

after taking into consideration the additional evidences now filed before the

Tribunal. The assessee is also directed to file the additional evidences now

filed before the Tribunal before the Assessing Officer as and when called

upon to do so. I order accordingly.

file of the Assessing Officer.

purposes.

3.3.2016 of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2009-10.

confirming the penalty of Rs.2,82,220/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

4 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

that the Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act

without mentioning as to whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate

particulars or concealed the particulars of its income. Further, the CIT(A)

has held that in respect of three additions as income, the assessee has

concealed and/or inaccurate particulars of income have been filed. Ld A.R.

submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble

Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. v CIT

(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), in which the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held

that it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty

has been levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee

or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the

assessee. The Assessing Officer in this case has not clearly laid down what

defect has been committed by the assessee. Therefore, he prayed to delete

the penalty imposed by the Assessing officer.

orders of lower authorities.

authorities, I find that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty

u/s.271(1)(c) of the act by observing as under:

“I deem it a fit case to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. “

5 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

under:

“In respect of three additions as income, the assessee has concealed and/or inaccurate particulars of income have been filed.”

(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj) has held as under:-

“11. In the case of CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (supra) this is what is laid down by this Court at page No. 310 of the reports :

"... We find from the order of the IAC, in the penalty proceedings, that is, the final conclusion as expressed in para 4 of the order : "I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". Now, the language of "and/or" may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee. No such clear-cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the IAC was liable to be struck down."

The penalty order and the order of CIT(A) show that no clear-cut finding has been reached. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate this legal issue. Applying the ratio to the facts of the case it is apparent that the order of penalty cannot be sustained and the Tribunal could not have sustained the same. The Tribunal having failed to take into consideration and deal with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court it would constitute an error in law which goes to the very basis of the controversy involved and hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be upheld.”

Meadows dated 11th January, 2017 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (CC

No.11485/2016) has held that Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in

6 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for

furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the

penalty order liable for cancellation.

the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s. Emarld

Meadows(supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case

of New Sorathia Engineering Co. (supra). Hence, respectfully following the

same, I cancel the levy of penalty of Rs.2,82,217/- u/s.271(1)(c) and allow

the ground of appeal of the assessee.

7 ITA No. 258/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack