Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
S.H.Mumtazuddin -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AANFS0982J) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 17.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.02.2013 of CIT(A)- XX, Kolkata, relating to AY 2003-04.
In this appeal the Assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) imposed penalty on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed by the AO are as follows :- The Assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of running retail showrooms for watches, clocks and time pieces etc. The Assessee filed return of income for A.Y.2003-04 declaring the loss of Rs.1,89,627/-. AO framed an order of assessment u/s 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,06,73,855/- by order dated 27.03.2006. This assessment was set aside by C.I.T. in exercising of powers u/s 263 of the Act. Subsequently order of assessment u/s 143(3)
S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 was framed by AO on 18.08.2008 and the total income was determined at Rs.,2,10,70,840/-.
On further appeal by the assessee CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.12.2009 gave relief to the assessee consequent to which addition of Rs.12,77,461/- was alone sustained. The Assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid addition before CIT(A). However in the meanwhile, in respect of additions so sustained, AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act imposed penalty on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
On appeal by the assessee CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the Revenue. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. Before the Tribunal the learned counsel drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act before imposing penalty and submitted that the said notice does not specify as to whether the Assessee is guilty of having “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” or of having “concealed particulars of such income”. He pointed out that the printed show cause notice does not strike out the irrelevant portion viz., “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealed particulars of such income”. He drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 218 Taxman 423 (Kar.) wherein it was held that if the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act does not specify as to the exact charge viz., whether the charge is that the Assessee has “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealed particulars of income” by striking out the irrelevant portion of printed show cause notice, than the imposition of penalty on the basis of such invalid show cause notice cannot be sustained. 2
S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 7. Reference was also made to several judicial pronouncements. In particular our attention was drawn to a decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench “A” Bench in the case of Shri Satyananda Achariya Biswas Vs. DCIT order dated 2.12.2015 for AY 2003-04 wherein on identical facts penalty was deleted after considering all the judicial pronouncements referred to above.
8. We have given a very careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. We have also perused the show-cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act for all the aforesaid AYs 2002-03 to 2006-07. The AO in the said show cause notice has not struck off the irrelevant portion as to whether the charge against the Assessee is “concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. In this regard, this tribunal in the case of Shri Satyananda Achariya Biswas (supra) has taken the following view on both the question with regard to existence of satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings and the effect of not striking off the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act as follows: “7. On the above issue the first aspect which we notice is that in the order of assessment, which we have extracted in the earlier part of this order, nowhere spells out or indicates that the AO was of the view that the Assessee was guilty of either concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The offer to tax of income by the Assessee has just been accepted. It is no doubt true that it is not the requirement of the law that the satisfaction has to be recorded in a particular manner, especially after the introduction of the provisions of Sec.271(1B) of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989. Nevertheless, as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms.Madhushree Gupta (supra), the position of law both pre and post Sec.271(1B) of the Act is similar, inasmuch, the AO will have to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction during the course of proceedings with regard to the assessee having concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, before he initiates penalty proceedings. ‘prima facie’ satisfaction of the AO that the case may deserve the imposition of penalty should be discernible from the order passed during the course of the proceedings. At the stage of initiation of penalty proceeding the order passed by the AO need not reflect satisfaction vis-a-vis each and every item of addition or disallowance if overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. (supra) has to be understood in the context of the facts of the said case. The relevant portion of the judgment in the aforesaid case, reads thus:
S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 “9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. In that situation, it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer 8 deeds duly signed, have been impounded in the course of survey proceedings under Section 133A conducted on 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return of income. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, it is clear that the assessee had no intention to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. The AO, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under Section 271 read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing…….”
The Revenue places reliance only on the sentence appearing in para-10 of the judgment without reading it in the context of the observations in the last portion of para-9 of the said judgment. Therefore even the Hon’ble supreme court’s decision suggests that the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible. If the AO accepts all the contentions of the Assessee and the offer of income that has not been declared in the return of income to tax without indicating either directly or indirectly that the Assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, it cannot be said that satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings is discernible from the order of assessment. If the Assessee in good faith offers income to tax voluntarily prior to any positive detection by the AO, such voluntary offer cannot be taken advantage of by the AO to initiate penalty proceedings against the Assesssee without specifying the reasons why penalty proceedings are initiated u/s.271(1) ( c) of the Act. In the present case, we have read the order of assessment as a whole and are satisfied that satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings is not discernible from the order of assessment. We therefore concur with the argument of the learned counsel for the Assesssee S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 that initiation of penalty proceedings was not proper in the present case and on that ground the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act is unsustainable.
The next argument that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied on the for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”. On this aspect we find that in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act the AO has not struck out the irrelevant part. It is therefore not spelt out as to whether the penalty proceedings are sought to be levied for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”. 9.1. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. M.anjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karn), 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. 9.2. 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. “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various ground set out therein. If the order passed by the Authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated, in the notice to be issued under Section 274, they could conveniently refer to the said order which contains the satisfaction of the authority which has passed the order. However, if the existence of the conditions could not be discerned from the said order and if it is a case of relying on deeming provision contained in Explanation-1 or in Explanation-1(B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in Section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on 5 S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 him as the Section 274 makes it clear that assessee has a right to contest such proceedings 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. The practice of the Department sending a printed farm where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.
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 6 S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 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 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. 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. 7
S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 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 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, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. 8
S.H.Mumtazuddin. A.Yr.2003-04 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.” (emphasis supplied)
9.3. 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. 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.
9. The aforesaid ruling will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case also satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act is not discernible from the order of assessment. The show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act is also defective. Following the decision referred to above, we hold that the penalty imposed on the Assessee u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled.
In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 06.04.2016.