VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 2

SHRI VINOD JINDAL

4. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the penalty notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act, we observe that the notices were issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, under reported/misreported the income. The AO failed to specify the exact limb for which the notice was issued. In other words, the AO did not specify the specific charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, whether for under reporting or misreporting of income.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 taxmann.com 248) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue.

6. We observe that an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon’ble High Court held as under:

"Question No.1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), does a mere defect in the notice— not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden ties on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(l)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice? 184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed". Kaushalya doses the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done ", 185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non-application of mind and prejudice.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars.

6.1 As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.

7. In the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:-

SHRI VINOD JINDAL

“The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.) and observed that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify in which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgement in the subsequent order in CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn.), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by an order dated August 5, 2016 [CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC)].”

8. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “11. The Tribunal, after perusing the record and considering the submissions, observed as follows: "13. In the present appeal, the show-cause-notice dated 15-3-2013 which has been issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the Act reveals that Assessing Officer has not recorded any clear cut satisfaction as to whether the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income."

13. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid, the Tribunal concluded, that the penalty order could not be sustained, and consequently allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL brought on record by Mr Kumar, which would persuade us to deviate from the view taken by the coordinate bench, and refer the matter to a larger bench.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

10. We further observed that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte.

Ltd. vs. ACIT (145 taxmann.com 665) held as under:

“2. By way of the impugned order, dated 09th March, 2022, the Petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that the case of the Petitioner did not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 270AA of the Act.

5. Issue notice Mr.Sunil Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. He relies on the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 to contend that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 270AA of the Act.

7. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the entire edifice of the assessment order framed by Respondent No.1 was actually voluntary computation of income filed by the Petitioner to buy peace and avoid litigation, which fact has been duly noted and accepted in the assessment order as well and consequently, there is no question of any misreporting.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL

9. This Court is further of the view that the impugned action of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the avowed Legislative intent of Section 270AA of the Act to encourage/incentivize a taxpayer to (i) fast-track settlement of issue, (ii) recover tax demand; and (iii) reduce protracted litigation.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL Respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as in the penalty notice the Respondents have failed to specify the limb "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated.

7. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary.

SHRI VINOD JINDAL "The contention of the assessee to drop the penalty proceedings is rejected because the assessee has clearly misreported its income by an amount of Rs.3,94,996/- as per the provisions of the Section 270(A)(9) of the Act. And a misreported income leads to evasion of Tax. Hence, it is clearly established that the assessee has committed an intentionally fault under the provisions of the Section 270(A)(9) of the Act by under reporting its income in consequence of misreporting its income, to the tune of Rs.3,94,996/-. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of penalty that is to be levied for the fault of under reporting income in consequence of misreporting income is determined under section 270A(8) of the Act, which is two hundred percent of the tax payable on under reported income in consequence of misreported income."

12. And the above action of AO has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning. The question is whether the AO's action to levy penalty u/s 270A(9) of the Act is sustainable in the given facts of the case. In order to examine that let us have a look at relevant provisions of Section 270(8) & (9) of the Act which reads as under: - 13. The AO has levied the higher penalty of 200% of tax payable of misreporting income. Then in such a scenario, the AO has to bring the action/omission on the part of the assessee in the ken of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act which are given (supra), viz (a) to (f) of section 270A(9) of the Act. However, a reading of the reasons given by the AO to levy penalty for misreporting (supra) it is discerned that he has failed to spell out as to how the assessee's case/additions falls within the ken of instances given in clause (a) to (f) of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act. Since AO failed to bring the addition/disallowance he made in quantum assessment, under the ken of (a) to (f) of the sub- section(9) of section 270A of the Act, the penalty 15

SHRI VINOD JINDAL levied for misreporting @ 200% cannot be sustained because it is trite law that penalty provisions have to be strictly interpreted. And therefore, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the levy of penalty by Shri Manish Manohardas Asrani the AO u/s 270A of the Act suffers from the vice of non- application of mind as well as violates principles of natural justice. And therefore, the penalty levied on addition of sustained quantum addition of Rs.67,970/- cannot survive. And therefore, it is directed to be deleted." 7.2 The Hon'ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Jaina Marketing & Associates case (supra) ultimately deleted the identical penalty as imposed u/s 270A(9) of the Act, by holding as under: "15. In the instant case, on perusal of the penalty notice placed on record dated 02/06/2021, it is evident that the Ld. AO had show caused the assessee as to why the assessee should not be imposed with penalty for 'under reporting of income'. The assessee had filed its submissions stating that he had not 'under reported its income' We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept to the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee did not make any submissions with regard to 'mis reporting of income'. The assessee could be expected to give reply only in respect of show cause notice that is put to him. Why at all the assessee should infer/ assume/presume that the Ld. AO having recorded satisfaction in the quantum assessment order that offence of both 'under reporting' and 'mis reporting' is committed by the assessee and accordingly the penalty would be levied on the assessee for both in terms of section 270A(9) of the Act? 16. It is well settled that penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veera Singhaiah & Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) wherein it was held that findings recorded in SHRI VINOD JINDAL assessment proceedings cannot be taken as conclusive for penalty proceedings. Even the provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act provides for granting immunity from penalty if the case falls in "under reporting of income". Moreover different rates of penalty are prescribed for 'under reporting of income' alone and for 'under reporting' in consequence of 'misreporting of income'. Hence it is all the more essential to mention in the show cause notice itself as to which of the offence is committed by the assessee for which explanations are being sought for by the Id. AO. There is no whisper at all in the notice issued u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act about "misreporting of income". In-fact two notices were issued by the Id. AO and in both the notices, the A.O. had only directed the assessee to reply with regard to 'under reporting of income'. But we find that the penalty had been levied ultimately for both 'under reporting' and 'misreporting of income' @ 200% in terms of section 270A(9) of the Act for which show cause notice was never issued to the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Shri Manish Manohardas Asrani Life Insurance reported in 432 ITR 84 (Del) and other decision referred supra squarely applies to the facts of the instant case before us. Hence we direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal of the Assessee on this technical ground and leave the grounds raised on levy of penalty on merits left open as adjudication of the same becomes academic in nature."

8. Coming to the instant case, admittedly in the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act without mentioning any sub clause of the section 270A of the Act or not specifying any limb of the penalty proposed to be levied. Further, in the penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act dated 11.11.2021 mentioned under reporting of the income. Subsequently during the penalty proceedings again issued the notice dated 20.12.2021 u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act, without specifying any limb or 17

SHRI VINOD JINDAL sub clause of section 270A of the Act and ultimately vide order dated 22.02.2022 u/s 270A of the Act levied the penalty for misreporting of the income as well as underreporting of the income, as per provisions of section 270A(8) of the Act with the aid of section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. As the AO issued the vague notice without specifying any particular limb or sub clause for levying the proposed penalty. There is no whisper at all in the notice issued u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act about "misreporting of income" whereas the penalty has been levied ultimately for both 'under reporting' and 'misreporting of income' @ 200% in terms of section 270A(9) of the Act, for which show cause notice was never issued to the Assessee. And therefore in view of the judgment passed by the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaina Marketing & Associates (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only analyzed the provisions of law but also considered the judgments of the Higher Courts and the Tribunal and deleted the identical penalty as involved in this case, hence respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal, we are inclined to delete the penalty under consideration. Thus, the penalty is deleted and appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

11.1 Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ)

Pte. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), we hold that the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act by the Assessing Officer for the AY 2017-18 is bad in law and accordingly the penalty order is quashed.

12. As we have decided the preliminary and legal ground in favour of the assessee by quashing the penalty orders the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not gone into as the adjudication of these grounds become only academic at this stage. 18

SHRI VINOD JINDAL

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2025