SHRI NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF, JALANDHAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR

ITA 754/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7081 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJEET SYAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 143(1); 263

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SHRI N.K SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR(S): 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15) SH. NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF, C/O ANAND RUBBER & PLASTIC (P) LTD, H.O. MAI HIRAN GATE, JALANDHAR VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR PAN AA DHN0422N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI GUNJEET SYAL, A.R REVENUE BY: SHRI AJAY GOYAL, C.I.T, D.R DATE OF HEARING: 10.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.01.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR (FOR SHORT PR. CIT) UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T. ACT), DATED 31.10.2017. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS, HENCE THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATE ORDER, TAKING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PAGE | 2 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AS THE LEAD YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED AND AS SUCH PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT-II, JALANDHAR IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VOID ABINITIO. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CORRECTLY SHOWN LEASE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS WRONGLY ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) @ 30% AND THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS ONLY CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED WHEN THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE AND EXPLANATION TO GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE. 4. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 WHEREIN LEASE INCOME HAD BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF EXPRESSION BUILDINGS AND LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO AND IS HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS DEBATABLE AND INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. 5. THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS LEASE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE REVENUE AND SAME CAN NOT QUALIFY AS A FALSE CLAIM AS THE ERSTWHILE AO, TENANT, INCUMBENT AO AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT LAND & BUILDING WAS GIVEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS BEING USED BY THE TENANT FOR ITS BUSINESS. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED A NON SPEAKING ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. APART THEREFROM, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, NO SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BEFORE PASSING ORDER U/S 263 DATED 17.05.2017. 2. THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1B) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AS CIT IS NOT AO AS PER SECTION 2(7) IT ACT, 1961. AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAD SOUGHT ADJUDICATION OF A LEGAL ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREFORE, IN THE BACKDROP OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PAGE | 3 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) , THE SAME ARE ADMITTED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HUF HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 21.03.2007, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9,26,788/-. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 9,73,340/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED, VIDE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148, DATED 09.02.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD., VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 18.04.2007 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE AS LEASE RENT FOR LAND, BUT SUCH RENTAL INCOME AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,17,145/- (BEING 30% OF THE NET ANNUAL VALUE OF RS. 13,90,485/-) UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE I.T. ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A.O FRAMED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 24.12.2009 AND ASSESSED THE LEASE RENT FOR LAND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S LARSEN AND TURBO LTD. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ASSESSED ITS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 14,14,028/. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (FOR SHORT TRIBUNAL). THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 368/ASR/2015, DATED 04.02.2016 FOR PAGE | 4 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 A.Y. 2006-07, REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT. 5. THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DID FIND FAVOUR WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A BUILDING EXISTED ON THE PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS LEASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS BEING USED BY THE LESSEE, THOUGH THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE SAME IN THE AGREEMENT OF LEASE. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID FACTS, THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT IT STOOD ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPERTY LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPRISED OF BUILDING AND LAND APPURTENANT THERETO, THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE LEASE RENT HAD RIGHTLY BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE A.O ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 9,26,790/- OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 03.06.2016 WAS REVISED BY THE PR. CIT-2, JALANDHAR UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, BY HOLDING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS, TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PR. CIT, VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263, DATED 17.05.2017 CONCLUDED THAT THE A.O BY ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEASE RENT WAS RIGHTLY SHOWN BY IT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, HAD THUS ALLOWED EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF RS. 4,17,145/-. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE PR. CIT DIRECTED THE A.O TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT BY ASSESSING THE LEASE RENT OF RS. 14,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 24(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,17,145/-. THE PR. CIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 263 ALSO PAGE | 5 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PR. CIT CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CASE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) MAY NOT BE IMPOSED UPON IT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS IT HAD DISCLOSED ALL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF EARNING OF LEASE INCOME AND THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT OR POSITIVE ACT ON ITS PART TO CONCEAL INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE COURSE OF RAISING OF A BONAFIDE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 24(A), HENCE NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WAS LIABLE TO BE IMPOSED, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE PR. CIT. THE PR. CIT BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 1,63,671/- UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ASSAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PR. CIT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE PR. CIT-2, JALANDHAR UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WAS NOT VALID AS HE HAD ILLEGALLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE THE SAME WITHOUT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, DATED 17.05.2017. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263, DATED 17.05.2017 HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HOWEVER NO SATISFACTION ON HIS PART THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PAGE | 6 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME WAS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE SAID ORDER. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH AS PER SEC. 271(1B) THE DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 271 IN THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O FOR INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, HOWEVER, THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO A CASE WHERE SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED BY A PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE LD. A.R IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HIS CONTENTION TOOK US THROUGH SEC. 271(1B) AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS APPLICABLE ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 2(7A) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R, THAT AS PER SEC. 2(7A) A PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF THE TERM OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS DEFINED IN THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE PR. CIT HAD FAILED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263, DATED 17.05.2017, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEREFORE, HE HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE AFORESAID JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 271(1B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT-2, JALANDHAR UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LATTER HAD VALIDLY IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE | 7 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PR. CIT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS HAD BEEN ASSAILED BY THE LD. A.R BEFORE US. 11. ADMITTEDLY, THE PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, DATED 17.05.2017 HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, RECORDING OF ANY SATISFACTION ON HIS PART THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SEC. 263, DATED 17.05.2017. WE FIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM BY INCORPORATING SEC. 271(1B) ON THE STATUTE, VIDE THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, W.R.E.F 01.04.1989 HAS PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CONTAINS A DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SEC. 271, SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CUSHION PROVIDED BY SEC. 271(1B) IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE SAME WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THOSE INITIATED BY A PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R IS FORTIFIED FROM THE FACT THAT A PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF THE DEFINITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 2(7A) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF A PRINCIPAL PAGE | 8 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION AS TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY HIM UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C), WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, WOULD NOT BE CURABLE BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 271(1B) OF THE I.T. ACT. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PRADEEP PUBLICATIONS VS THE ASSTT. CIT (ITA NO. 483(ASR)/2005, DATED 04.05.2007 AND ACIT VS. PRADEEP PUBLICATIONS (2010) 130 TTJ 92 (UO)(ASR) . 12. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, AS THE PR. CIT HAD MERELY INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT HAD NOWHERE RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AS TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME SUFFERS FROM A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW RENDERS THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY HIM UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) AS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. OUR AFORESAID VIEW STANDS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUNISH IRON STORE (2003) 263 ITR 484 (P&H) AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (DEL) . INSOFAR, AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1B) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE BEFORE US WHEREIN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) HAD BEEN INITIATED BY THE PR. CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WOULD HOLD THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROPOSITION OF LAW. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PR. CIT-2, JALANDHAR HAD PAGE | 9 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS CONCLUDE THAT AS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) BY THE PR. CIT-2, JALANDHAR SUFFERS FROM A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS HEREIN QUASHED. 14. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIZ. ITA NO. 748/ASR./2017 IS ALLOWED. 15. AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE OTHER SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ. A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2014-15 VIZ. ITA NOS. 749 TO 754/ASR./2017 REMAINS THE SAME AS WERE THERE BEFORE US IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIZ ITA NO. 748/ASR./2017, THEREFORE, OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIZ. ITA NO. 748/ASR./2017 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2014-15 VIZ. ITA NOS. 749 TO 754/ASR./2017. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2014-15 VIZ. ITA NOS. 749 TO 754/ASR./2017 ARE THUS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, VIZ. ITA NO. 748/ASR./2017. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : JALANDHAR; DATED 15 .01.2019 PS. ROHIT PAGE | 10 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. DR, ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) /ITAT, CAMP BENCH, JALANDHAR PAGE | 11 ITA NO. 748 TO 754/ASR/2017, A.Y (S). 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF. VS. PR. CIT-2 SR.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15.1.19 SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.1.19 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER