Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya, Delhi V. DCIT, Karnal

ITA 145/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7020 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR ANJULA JAIN
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI , . , ) BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 145/DEL/2017 * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2012-13 URMILLA GHANSHYAM DASS GHIRAIYA, A-21, FIRST FLOOR, LOK VIHAR PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034 PAN-ABUPG5671N .......... /APPELLANT VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL ... / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SH. SAMEER KAPOOR, CA / RESPONDENT BY : DR. ANJULA JAIN, ADV / DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.01.2020 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(A)- 3,GURGAON, DATED 31.10.2016,RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE READS AS UNDER:- . / ITA NO:- 145/DEL/2017 2 1. WHETHER THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE BY IMPOSING PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2016 WITHOU T HAVING JURISDICTION, AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(2 ) DATED 18.02.2016. 2. WHETHER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE BY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,21,080/- FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. 3. THE ASSESSEE RETAINS THE RIGHT TO ADD/DELETE/MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRAVELLING IN ROUTE FROM HISAR TO DELHI AND WAS CAR RYING CASH OF RS.85 LAKHS. THE SAID CASH WAS CONFISCATED BY THE POLICE AND STATEMENT OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. HE POINTED OU T THAT THE CASH WAS OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.87,86,200/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.40,920/-. ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D CAPITAL GAIN WAS WORKED OUT ON THE SALE OF SAID LAND. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES, WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT , INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DEFAULTED FOR CONCEALING THE I NCOME. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IS WHETHER PROPER SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECO RDED OR NOT. IT SEEMS THAT . / ITA NO:- 145/DEL/2017 3 THE AO HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON BOTH TH E LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS LEVIABLE EITHER FOR C ONCEALING THE INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO WHILE INITIATING THE SAME HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION IN THIS REGARD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SU CH RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS MISSING AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING PENALTY PROC EEDINGS IS INVALID. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN INC OME TAX APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2014 WITH OTHER INCOME TAX APPEALS NOS.9 53 OF 2014, 1097 OF 2014 AND 1226 OF 2014, JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2017, W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE INITIATION OF PENALTY IS ON ONE LIMB AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS ON OTHER LIMB, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SHOW CAUS E NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN LEVY OF PENALTY. 7. APPLYING THE SAID PRINCIPLE AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA), TH E REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT IS TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF NO N SATISFACTION OF ONE LIMB ESPECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE ONE ADDITION IS SOUGHT T O BE MADE, FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS REF ERRED TO BY US IN THE EARLIER . / ITA NO:- 145/DEL/2017 4 PARA, WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEE N INITIATED BOTH FOR CONCEALING AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT STAND FOR NON-RECORDING OF PROPER SATISFACTION. HEN CE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT AT RS.24,21,080/- . GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT / DATED : 31 ST JANUARY, 2020 SHEKHAR, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. '# / THE PR. CIT 4. , , ' / DR, ITAT, DELHI 5. ) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , -. , , / ITAT, DELHI