TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction was determined by the Assessing Officer on estimated basis at Rs. 1,33,89,565/- by applying a net profit rate of 8%. He added other income of Rs. 2,60,949/- to the business income so estimated and also made a further addition of Rs. 2.10 crores by treating the share capital including share premium amount received by the asseessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The total income of the assessee thus was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 3,46,50,520/- as against the total income of Rs. 74,43,596/- declared by the asseessee-company in its return of income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer but since the appeal filed by the assessee in the quantum proceedings challenging the additions made to its total income was pending before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance by the Assessing Officer. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee in the quantum proceedings challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer to its total income in the assessment completed under section 143(3) came to be disposed of by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide its appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya -vs.- ACIT (in ITA No. 1303/KOL/2010) cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the identical fact situation and the order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held to be invalid by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Another -vs.- Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 after discussing the proposition laid down therein in great detail in paragraph no. 8 to 8.2 of its order dated 06.11.2015, which read as under:- "8. 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" or "concealing particulars of such income". On this aspect we find that in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act the AO has not struck out the irrelevant part. It is therefore not spelt out as to whether the penalty proceedings are sought to be levied for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealing particulars of such income". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious 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 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, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard pro forma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind." The final conclusion of the Hon'ble Court was as follows:- "63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty 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) Existence 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 Appellate Authority 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 from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute conceal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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) Taking 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 assessment, 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 proceedings. 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 reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." (emphasis supplied) 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 defective as it does not spell out the gro....