Sri Satyananda Achariya Biswas, North 24 Parganas V. DCIT, Centra Circle - XIII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 5/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 523514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBASISH LAHIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Retrospective amendment; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Documents seized
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] ITA NO.05/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISWAS -VERSUS- D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:ADEPB 9171 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.K.TIBREWAL, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI DEBASISH LAHIRI, JCIT, SR .DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :02.12.2015. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 14.10.2009 OF CIT(A)- CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). THE APPEAL RELATES TO AY 2003-04. 2. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS THE PRINCIPA L PERSON OF THE GROUP AIRCRAFT GROUP. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE O PERATION CARRIED OUT U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 24.1.2006 IN THE CASE OF THE AIRCRAFT GROUP AND THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SUCH A SE ARCH. THE GROUP IS INVOLVED BASICALLY INTO AIR HOSTESS TRAINING, PILOT & STEWAR D TRAINING AND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH HAD ENTERED INTO THE AREA OF AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING & MAINTENANCE AND HAS ALSO STARTED A COLLEGE IN BARASAT FOR IMPARTING TRAINING IN THE AF ORESAID AREAS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A RENOWNED ASTROLOGER. 2 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 2.1. AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED ASSESSMEN TS WERE FRAMED FOR 6 AYS FROM 2000-01 TO 2006-07 AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153A OF THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS WERE FOUND. THE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS SO FOUND SHOWED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVES TMENTS IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES BESIDES MONIES LYING IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE INVESTMENTS AND MONIES SO FOUND FOR THE VARIOUS AYS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,09,89 6/-. THE ABOVE COMPUTATION OF INVESTMENTS AND MONIES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE H IMSELF IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT. THE SU M OF RS.12,09,896/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN VARIOUS AYS BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS: AY 2000-01 RS.26,000 AY 2001-02 NIL AY 2002-03 RS.56,741 AY 2003-04 RS.10,44,874 AY 2004-05 RS.45,688 AY 2005-06 RS.564 AY 2006-07 RS.36,051 AS FAR AS AY 2003-04 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE GAV E THE BREAK-UP OF SOURCE OF FUNDS OF RS.10,44,874 WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEP ARTMENT IN MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS AND DEPOSIT OF MONEY IN BANK ACCOUNT AS PROFIT FROM M/S.BHATIYA JYOTISH-O-AYURVEDA, INCOME FROM M/S.ALANKAR GEMS & JEWELLERY, INCOME FROM ASTROLOGY AND BUSINESS INCOME. 2.2. THE AO ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E AND BROUGHT TO TAX A SUM OF RS.10,44,874 TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 2003-04. T HE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD THERE IS A REFERENCE TO VARIOUS ITEMS OF JEWELLERY, UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS AND SEIZED PAPERS/DOCUMENTS. THEREAFTER THERE IS A REF ERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES OFFER TO TAX INCOME TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE. THE AO HAS A CCEPTED SUCH OFFER TO TAX OF INCOME AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MAKES A REFERENCE TO INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS FOLLOWS: 3 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C ) IS BEING INITIA TED SEPARATELY. ISSUE NOTICE U/S.274 ACCORDINGLY 2.3. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1 )( C) OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE AND IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE OFFERING OF INCOME HAD BEEN MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS ONLY WHICH CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF A P RIMA FACIE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THE OFFERING HAS BEEN M ADE OWING TO THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CERTAIN INVESTMEN TS IN FLATS NOTED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THEIR UNDISCLOSED NATURE WAS VERY MUC H WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH INTERRO GATION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HE COULD REPLY SATISFACTORILY AND HENCE HE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO OFFER THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO TAX. THE AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF BOTH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/ S.274 OF THE ACT ISSUED PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S.271(1(C ) OF THE ACT IMPOS ING PENALTY, THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE IS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE AS SESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST U/S.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT EXCEPT RECORDING AS FOLLOWS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT VIZ., PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)( C) INITIATED. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ABOVE MANNER OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THIS REGARD HE MADE REFERE NCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MWP LTD . (2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 496 4 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 (KARN.). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION IT WAS HELD THA T MERE MENTION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) INITIATED SEPA RATELY IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 271(1)( (C) FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF SEC.271(1B) OF THE ACT , IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS.MADHUSHR EE GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA 317 ITR 107(DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD IN THE RESULT, CONCLUSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS : (I) SE C. 271(1B) IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION; (II) THE POSITION OF LAW BOTH PRE AND POST AMENDMENT IS SIMILAR, INASMUCH, THE AO WILL HAVE TO ARRIVE AT A PRIMA FAC IE SATISFACTION DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING CONC EALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, BEFORE HE INITIAT ES PENALTY PROCEEDINGS; (III) PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION OF THE AO THAT THE CASE MAY DES ERVE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDER PASSED DURING THE COU RSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. OBVIOUSLY, THE AO WOULD ARRIVE AT A DECISION, I.E., A FINAL CO NCLUSION ONLY AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE; (IV) AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO NEED NOT REFLECT SATISFACTION VIS-A-VIS EACH AND EV ERY ITEM OF ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE IF OVERALL SENSE GATHERED FROM THE ORDER IS THAT A FUR THER PROGNOSIS IS CALLED FOR; (V) HOWEVER, THIS WOULD NOT DEBAR AN ASSESSEE FROM FURN ISHING EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION OF THE AO; SINCE PENALTY PROCEE DING ARE NOT A CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; (VI) DUE COMPLIANCE WOULD B E REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 274 AND 275; (VII) THE PRO CEEDINGS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING CANNOT BE SET ASIDE ONLY ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STATES PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY IF O THERWISE, IT CONFORMS TO THE PARAMETERS SET OUT HEREINABOVE ARE MET. THE PRAYERS MADE IN THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE THUS REJECTED WITH THE CAVEAT THAT PROVISIONS OF S. 271( 1)(C) POST-AMENDMENT WILL BE READ IN THE MANNER INDICATED ABOVE. POINTING OUT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT SPELL OUT ANY SATISFACTIO N AS IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE AO ACCEPTED WHATEVER EVIDEN CE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED AND ALSO THE OFFER OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAX. 3.1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.274 OF THE ACT BEFORE IMPOSING PE NALTY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF HAVING FURNISHED 5 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR OF HAVING CON CEALED PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PRINTED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D OES NOT STRIKE OUT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION VIZ., FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GI NNING FACTORY (2013) 218 TAXMAN 423 (KAR.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO THE EXACT CHARGE VIZ., W HETHER THE CHARGE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY STRIKING OUT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF PRINTED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THAN THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INVA LID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MAK DATA (P) LTD. VS. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SATISFACTION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED IN ANY PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE SUCH MANNER OF ARRI VING AT SATISFACTION IN WRITING. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOTUS CONSTRUCTIONS (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 182 (AP) WHEREIN THE HONBLE AP HIGH CO URT EXPLAINED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA ( SUPRA) AND HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT WAS UNSUSTAINABLE . 6. WE SHALL NOW DEAL WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER PROP ER SATISFACTION WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE AO FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.27 1(1)( C ) IN THE COURSE OF CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE A DDITIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED WERE MADE. 6 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 7. ON THE ABOVE ISSUE THE FIRST ASPECT WHICH WE NOT ICE IS THAT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, NOWHERE SPELLS OUT OR INDICATES THAT THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF EITHER CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE OFFER TO TAX OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST BEE N ACCEPTED. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW THAT THE SATIS FACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE INTRODUCTIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1B) OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989. N EVERTHELESS, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS.MADHUSH REE GUPTA (SUPRA), THE POSITION OF LAW BOTH PRE AND POST SEC.271(1B) OF THE ACT IS SIMILAR, INASMUCH, THE AO WILL HAVE TO ARRIVE AT A PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, BEFORE HE INITIATES PENALTY PROCEEDING S. PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION OF THE AO THAT THE CASE MAY DESERVE THE IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDER PASSED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO NEED NOT REFL ECT SATISFACTION VIS-A-VIS EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE IF OVERALL S ENSE GATHERED FROM THE ORDER IS THAT A FURTHER PROGNOSIS IS CALLED FOR. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS TO BE UNDERST OOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMEN T IN THE AFORESAID CASE, READS THUS: 9. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THIS CASE IS NOT VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THE OFFER OF SURRENDER WAS MADE IN VIEW OF DETECTION MADE BY THE AO IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THAT SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS COMP RISING OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, BANK STATEMENTS, MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF COMPA NIES, AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND BLANK SHARE T RANSFER 8 DEEDS DULY SIGNED, HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON 16.12.2003, IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DIS CLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, IT WOULD HAVE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INCLUSIVE OF T HE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SURRENDERED LATER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOM E. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF 7 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 PAYMENTS MADE BY IT AND TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE AO, IN OUR VIEW, HAS RECORDE D A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRUE PART ICULARS OF INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 READ WITH SEC TION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. THE AO HAS TO SATISFY WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCE EDINGS BE INITIATED OR NOT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE IT IN TO WRITING. 8. THE REVENUE PLACES RELIANCE ONLY ON THE SENTENCE APPEARING IN PARA-10 OF THE JUDGMENT WITHOUT READING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE O BSERVATIONS IN THE LAST PORTION OF PARA-9 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. THEREFORE EVEN THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION SUGGESTS THAT THE SATISFACTION NEED NOT BE RECORDED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER BUT FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS A WHOLE SUCH SAT ISFACTION SHOULD BE CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE. IF THE AO ACCEPTS ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OFFER OF INCOME THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TO TAX WITHOUT INDICATING EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS DISCERNIBLE FR OM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IF THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH OFFERS INCOME TO TAX VOLUNTA RILY PRIOR TO ANY POSITIVE DETECTION BY THE AO, SUCH VOLUNTARY OFFER CANNOT BE TAKEN ADV ANTAGE OF BY THE AO TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSSEE WITHOUT S PECIFYING THE REASONS WHY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S.271(1) ( C) OF THE AC T. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE READ THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AS A WHOLE AND ARE SATISFIE D THAT SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT. WE THEREFORE CONCUR WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSSEE THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT PROPER IN THE PRESENT C ASE AND ON THAT GROUND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 9. THE NEXT ARGUMENT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/ S.274 OF THE ACT WHICH IS IN A PRINTED FORM DOES NOT STRIKE OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED ON THE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME O R CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. ON THIS ASPECT WE FIND THAT IN THE SHOW C AUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT THE 8 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 AO HAS NOT STRUCK OUT THE IRRELEVANT PART. IT IS T HEREFORE NOT SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 9.1. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KARN), HA S HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DO WN THAT CERTAIN PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SECTION 271 ARE GIVE N WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT INITIATING PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FIND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY IN ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AFORESAID DECISION WILL SQUARELY APPLY AND ALL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY HAVE TO BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9.2. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S.271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORI TY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTION ED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTEN CE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE O F RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION-1 OR IN EXPLANATION-1(B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT I S PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTI ON 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY O N HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PRO CEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FARM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS S ERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH 9 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, TH AT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CAS ES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM G UILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONF INED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN T O THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROU ND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHI CH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDE R WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CA NNOT VALIDATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE AC T TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDIN GS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL IN COME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIF FERENT. 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 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HA S 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 OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS T HE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOU T STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE HONBLE COURT WAS AS FO LLOWS:- 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EME RGES IS AS UNDER: 10 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIAB ILITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSI NG PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDI ENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 2 71(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISC ERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVEN IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATION 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FRO M THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOULD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT BECAUSE O F DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 271(L)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDI NGS 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) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORD ER 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 PROC EEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, I T IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES IT H AS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND I F NOT IT WOULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONAFIDE, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED . M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUB STANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL 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 AMBIGUITY. 11 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY S ATISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDING S, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AU THORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPEC IFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETH ER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS O F INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTI ONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE H AS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO TH E ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AN D FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THOUGH EM ANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT O F THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INCORREC T PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, TH E VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIE D, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED A S INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9. 3. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT IS DEFECT IVE AS IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSE D. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDE RS IMPOSING PENALTY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE HELD AS INVALID AND CON SEQUENTLY PENALTY IMPOSED IS CANCELLED. 9.4. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE CANCEL THE ORDER S IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF O UR ABOVE CONCLUSIONS ON THE ISSUE 12 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04 OF NOT RECORDING OF PROPER SATISFACTION AND THE DEF ECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE OTHER ARGUMENT S MADE ON MERITS OF THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02.12.2015. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH ] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 02.12.2015. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISWAS, LOKENATH BHAWAN, IROBATI PALLY, KAZIPARA, BARASAT, 24 PGS. (NORTH). 2. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-II, KOLKATA 4. CIT-CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 13 ITA NO.05//KOL/2010 SHRI SATYANANDA ACHARIYA BISW AS,A.Y.2003-04