Smt. Natasha Jain, Dehradun V. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 3598/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4152 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N C UPPADHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; K K JUNEJA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c); 50C; 54F; 274; 13; 27; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRAD UN BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SMT. NATASHA JAIN 59, GANDHI ROAD, DEHRADUN. PAN AAMPJ 9396A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K. K. JUNEJA, CA & DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV., RESPONDENT BY SH. N.C.UPPADHAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 03.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST O RDER DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)- DEHRADUN {CIT (A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY UPHELD LEVY OF PEN ALTY TO THE TUNE 2 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT OF RS.9,97,600/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET INCO ME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.36,99,790/- ON SALE OF PROP ERTY AT NOIDA FOR RS.50 LACS. THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 54 OF THE ACT BY STATING THAT SUM OF RS.40 LACS HAD BEEN INVESTED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FRO M M/S DOON UDYOG LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THAT SINCE THE VALU E FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WAS RS.57,52,000/-, THEREFORE, WHY SH OULD NOT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BE CALCULATED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE RESPOND ED TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BUT BEING UNSA TISFIED WITH HER REPLY, INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS CALCUL ATED BY THE AO AT RS.44,51,779/. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE AOS CONTENTION AND FURNISHED A FRESH COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THEN CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY SHOWING INVE STMENT OF RS. 53,24,544/- IN RESIDENTIAL PLOT AT VILLAGE KYARKULI , NEAR MUSSOORIE. 3 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT AGAIN DISSATISFIED WITH THE REPLY TENDERED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT, WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A BOGUS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F AND THAT SHE COUL D NOT SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM WITH EVIDENCES. THE AO, ACCOR DINGLY, COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.49,29,337/-. 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT (A) WHO, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.20 13, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 2.2 DURING COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED BY THE AO VIDE NOTICE U/S 274 DATED 26.12.2011. POST ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) ON MERITS, THE AO PROCEEDED WITH THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS AND VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2014, LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS 11,30,352/- ALLEGING THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY. THE LD CIT (A), VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER, UPHELD THE PENALTY IN PAR T TO THE TUNE OF RS 9,97,600/-. 4 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT 2.3 BEING STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IN NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL), DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.9,97,600/- (RS.11,50,000/- AS LEVIED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER MINUS RELIEF GRANTED BY HONBLE CIT(A) OF RS.152,400/- AS PER FINDING GIVEN IN PARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) U/SEC. 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ALLEGED FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME EARNED BY HER FROM LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AT NOIDA CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND RENDERED HERSELF LIABLE TO PENALTY. 2. THAT THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS MUCH AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CAS E IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHI LE INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFA CTION IN WRITING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHICH IS MAN DATORY IN LAW AS TO WHETHER ON FACTS OF THE CASE THE APPELLAN TS FALLS EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR F INDING IN THIS REGARD, THE INITIATION OF PENALTY U/SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND IS IN VIOLATION TO THE SPE CIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT 3. THAT THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WHILE SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.9,97,60 0/- FURTHER ADDED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED THE ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED TO HER DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON SALE OF HER LAN D AT NOIDA IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD ALSO GIVEN THE CORR ECT PARTICULARS AND REASONS FOR HER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.36,99,790/- U/SEC. 54 OF THE ACT IN HER RETURNED OF INCOME ITSELF. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE OF APPELLA NT DOES NOT FALL EITHER IN THE CATEGORY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME O R IN THE CATEGORY OF FURNISHING INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF PENALTY U/SEC.271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT WAS INVALID IN LAW. THE SAME WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUSLY THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/SEC.54 OF THE ACT MERELY ON SUSPICION A ND SURMISES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AT MAUJA, KYARKULI BHATTA PARGANA , TEHZIL AND DISTT. DEHRADU N PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN PERIOD OF 2 YEARS 9 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF LAND AT NOIDA SOLD ON 18.0 2.2009 COMPRISING LAND AND A TIN SHED ALREADY CONSTRUCTED THEREON WHICH ITSELF IS COMPOSITE HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH QUAL IFIES FOR THE DEDUCTION U/SEC.54 OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE HONBLE CIT (A) OF MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS O F THE CASE BY THE APPELLANT FOR ALLEGED DUBIOUS CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N U/SEC.54 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IN THE AREA WH ERE THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE HOUSE COMPRISING LAND W ITH TIN ROOF SHED ARE COMMONLY CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME WAY DUE TO HEAVY RAINFALL IN THE AREA WHICH AFTER 16 TH JUNE, 2013 NOTIFIED A TSUNAMI AREA. 6. THAT THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) BEFORE UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS FURTHER E RRED IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION/EXE MPTION IS BONAFIDELY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS REGARDING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVE HER RIGHT IN FURNISHI NG ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS(S), IF REQUIRED, AND TO WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IF REQUIRED. THE APPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEA L, PRAY THAT THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/SEC.54 OF THE ACT MAY PLEAS E BE ALLOWED TO HER AND ACCORDINGLY THE UNWARRANTED PENA LTY OF RS.9,97,600/- BE DELETED/QUASHED AFTER PROVIDING A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 7 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT 3.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (LD. AR) DREW OUR ATTENTION TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF T HE ACT VIDE DATED 26.12.2011 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS NOTICE, PENALTY HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR HAVING CONCEALED TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY WAS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENA LTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED AND A DEFECT IN THE NOTICE I N THE NATURE OF THE SPECIFIC LIMB NOT BEING CLEARLY STATED WOULD VIT IATE THE ENTIRE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A VI EW HAS ALSO NOW BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI I N THE CASE OF SAHARA INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2019 IN ITA 475/2019. THE LD. AR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE PENALTY OUGHT TO BE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE DEFECT IN THE NOT ICE AS AFORESAID. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON NUMEROUS JUDICIAL PRE CEDENTS IN 8 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DEFECT IN NOTICE WOULD MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) PLACED EXTENSIVE RELIANCE ON TH E OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDING THAT SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY T HE AO IS NOT A VALID NOTICE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MADE AWARE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAS CONCEALED T HE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. WE FIND THAT VIDE NOTICE U/S 274 VIDE DATED 26.12.2011, THE AO HAD ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE AS UND ER (COPY ENCLOSED AT PAGE 19 OF PAPER BOOK): WHEREAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IN YOUR CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IT WAS F OUND THAT YOU HAVE: CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME AND / OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 9 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT AND WHEREAS, YOU HAVE RENDERED YOURSELF LIABLE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961. NOW THEREFORE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY A PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) BE NOT IMPOSED UPON YO U FOR THE DEFAULT MENTIONED ABOVE. IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND EITH ER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, OR WISH TO SUBMIT ANY WRITTEN EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME, YOU MAY DO SO AND ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED ON OR BEFORE 1 9.01.2012 AT 11:30 AM. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY WI TH THE TERMS OF THIS NOTICE, PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE DECIDED EX-PAR TE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5.1 IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CONFIR MED. RATHER, TO PROCEED WITH THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) , THE AO HAS TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F SUCH INCOME. 5.2 A BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT GOES TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN I F SHE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & ORS 359 10 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT ITR 565(KAR) HAS DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE THREADBARE AND COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION :- 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EME RGES IS AS UNDER: A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABI LITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSIN G PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIE NT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 27 1(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISCE RNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVER IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING T HE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT L EAST 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 O F DEEMING PROVISION. 11 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSM ENT OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PRO VISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE T O THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE COMMI SSIONER. 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 ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TA X AND INTEREST THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PE NALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, I T IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORIT IES IT HAS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILI TY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONAFIDE, AN ORDER IMPOS ING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. 12 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBS TANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE AND ALL F ACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMP OSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION IB TO S ECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SA TISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFAC TION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECI FICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., W HETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORREC T PARTICULARS OF INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GRO UND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HA S TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTI CE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. 13 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY THOUGH EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEP ENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF I NCORRECT PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR RE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS. 5.3 THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AS STATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAIN ST HER AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON HER PART, THE P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ALSO NO TE THAT RECENTLY, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SAHARAS CASE (SUPR A) HAS APPROVED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF SAHARA 14 ITA NO.3598/DEL/2015 SMT. NATASHA JAIN VS. DCIT INDIA LIFE INSURANCE. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS AFOREMENTIONED, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DIRECT THE AO DELETE THE PENALTY. 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31/05/2021. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 31/05/2021 *DRAGON* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI (DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH, DEHRADUN)