Krishna Srivastava, Bangalore V. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 1273/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0230 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RENUGADEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: ZAIN KHAN
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI A .K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1273 /BANG/201 5 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 ) SHRI KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA, FLAT T - 1,SUDHIMA RESIDENCY, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038 PAN ARVPS 4607F VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI ZAIN KHAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. P. RENUGADEVI, JCIT. DATE OF H EARING : 23.06 .2016. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 30. 06. 201 6 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J. M. : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT.3.9.2015 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5, BENGALURU ARISING FROM PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER IS PASSED IN HASTE, WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 3. THE ORDER IS PASSED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 5. THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY. THE APPELLA NT SEEKS YOUR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY & OTHERS 359 ITR 565 (KAR.) 3 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 DT.28.12.2011 WHICH READS AS UNDER : NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NO.ARVPS4607F/2011 - 12 OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), ROOM NO.317, 3 RD FLOOR, SOUTH WING, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. DATE : 28 TH DECEMBER, 2011. TO SHRI KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA, N O .1, ALSANA PLAZA, 10 TH MAIN, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, HAL 3 RD STAGE, BANGALORE. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009 - 10 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU : - HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT MY OFFICE ON 2.2.2012 AT 11.30 AM AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN O RDER IMPOSING PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WITH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEF ORE THE SAID 4 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). SD/ - (PRADEEP P ASPATWAR) ASST. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), BANGALORE. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF THE NOTIC E THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC MENTION IN THE NOTICE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUT HORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THIS CASE IS COVERED BY THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY & OTHERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN PARAS 61 TO 63 AS UNDER : 61. THE ASS ESSING 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, FURNI SHING 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 I N 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 GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND TH E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXMN 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 OFFICE R 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 INFER ENCE AS TO NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. 5 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING 62. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND INDEPENDENT THEREFROM. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TAXING PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THOUGH EMANATING FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT ARE INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDING, SEPARATE PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND SEPARATE NOTICES OF DEMAND ARE MADE FOR RECOVERY OF TAX AND AMOUNT OF PENALTY. ALSO SEPARATE APPE AL IS PROVIDED AGAINST ORDER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. ABOVE ALL, NORMALLY, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST PRECEDE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SUBMIT FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS BECAUSE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE I NDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT QUESTION THE ASSESSMENT JURISDICTION IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. JURISDICTION UNDER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN ONLY BE LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF PENALTY, SO THAT VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE A FINDING THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT IS INVALID IN SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. CLEARLY, THERE IS NO IDENTITY BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS. THE LATTER ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY, IN SOME CASES, FOLLOW AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH IT IS USUAL FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED, THIS IS MORE A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE THAN OF LEGAL REQUIREMENT. ALL THAT THE LAW REQUIRES, SO FAR AS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE INITIATED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUFFICIENT, IF THERE IS SOM E RECORD SOMEWHERE, EVEN APART FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OR OTHER DEFAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY ACTION IS CALLED FOR. INDEED, IN CERTAIN CASES, IT IS PO SSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE A PENALTY NOTICE OR INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EVEN LONG BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED. THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD PRECEDE OR BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I N POINT OF FACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE MODE OF COMPUTATION OF PENALTY OUTLINED IN THE STATUTE, THE ACTUAL PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED UNTIL THE ASSESSMENT IS FINALISED. CONCLUSION 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: A) PEN ALTY 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) EXISTEN CE 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 APPELLARE AUTHORITY OR REVISIONA L AUTHORITY. 6 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 F) EVER IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CORDRTIONS 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) IMPOSITIO N 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 ADM ITTED AND IF NOT IT WOULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANAT ION 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 TOTA L 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 AMBIGUITV. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION OR HAS NOT I SSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELATE 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 MENTIONE D WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 7 ITA NO. 1273 /BANG/ 201 5 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. S) TAKIN G 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 ASS ESSMENT, 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 PROCEE DINGS. 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 REASSESSMEN T CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF A VALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 274 OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH J U NE, 201 6 . SD/ - (A .K. GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER *REDDY GP