VANDANA SHARAD DHAKTODE,THANE vs. CIT I, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3363/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2015AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revision order was invalid because the CIT did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the specific ground of non-initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the AO has discretionary power to initiate penalty proceedings, which the CIT cannot compel.

What were the facts?

The CIT initiated revision proceedings under section 263 against the assessee's assessment order for AY 2009-10. The CIT believed the Assessing Officer (AO) should have initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for an unexplained cash credit addition.

What were the issues?

Whether a revision order under section 263 can be passed on grounds not communicated to the assessee, and whether the CIT can compel the AO to initiate penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje
Hearing: 4.11.2015Pronounced: 4.11.2015

सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing :4.11.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement:4.11.2015 आदेश / O R D E R

Per B R Baskaran, AM:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Thane under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee is challenging the validity of a revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act.

3.

We heard the parties and perused the record. The ld. AR submitted a copy of revision notice issued by the CIT and submitted that the CIT has initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act in order to verify the amount of Rs.4,55,221/- found credited in the capital account of the assessee.

Before the CIT, the assessee did not appear and hence the ld.CIT proceeded to pass the order ex-parte. However, the CIT noticed that the AO has, in fact, assessed the above said amount of Rs.4,55,221/- as income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit. Having noticed this fact, the Ld CIT took the view that the AO should have initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the above said addition and accordingly took the view that non-initiation of the penalty proceedings has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to re-do the assessment de-novo after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

The ld. A.R further submitted that the issue relating the initiation of revision proceedings was not mentioned in the notice issued by the CIT. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of Tribunal has held in the case of B S Sangwan V/s ITO (2015) 67 SOT 447 has held that revision order can only be passed on the ground on which the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard and it is not open to the Commissioner to set out one reason for revising order but actually revise the order on some other ground. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld CIT has revised the assessment order, in the instant case also, on the ground which was not stated in the notice.

5.

The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer has discretionary power with regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings and in the instant case, the AO has chosen not to initiate penalty proceedings. Hence the Ld CIT cannot compel the assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings by passing revision order. In support of this submissions, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in the case of Amarjeet Dhall Vs. CIT (2014)(65 SOT 33)(Cha)(URO).

6.

The ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the order passed by the Commissioner.

7.

Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made by the ld. AR. We notice that the CIT has not issued revision notice in connection with the non-initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence the same cannot be subject matter of revision. This view gets support from the decision rendered by the Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of B.S.Sangwan (supra), which had followed the decision rendered by other benches of Tribunal in the case of Synergy Entrepreneur Solutions (P) Ltd (2011)(46 SOT 111)(Delhi) and also in the case of Maxpak Investments Ltd Vs. Asst. CIT (2003)(13 SOT 67)(Delhi). Hence the revision order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

7. A casual perusal of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act would show that the AO “may” direct that the assessee shall pay by way of penalty….. The use of word “May” gives discretion to the AO not to initiate penalty proceedings. Hence, the Commissioner, under the garb of revising the assessment order, cannot direct the AO to change his decision. This view also finds support from the decision rendered by the Chandigarh bench of Tribunal in the case of Amarjeet Dhall (supra).

8.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the impugned revision order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the same.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →