TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it be held the penalty order passed by the ACIT was barred by limitation of time. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant prays that it be held that the appellant has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal, if necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2010 along with the Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in Form No.10B claiming exemption u/s 11 & declaring total income to the tune of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee and thereafter, assessment was completed assessing total income to the tune of Rs. 7,14,42,46,454/- against the returned income of Rs. Nil. The AO held that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(i), 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(2)(h) of the I. T. Act, hence, denied the assessee exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the I. T. Act. The AO observed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of section 13(1)(d)(i) in terms of investment in shares of Tata Sons Ltd and by provisions of section 13(1)(d)(iii) in terms of shares of TCS and Tab Sons Ltd held by it and exemption u/s 11 and 12 will not be allowable in respect of any income of the assessee's trust. 5. The CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO and thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble ITAT partly allowed the claim of the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT has given the following finding as under.:- "In the case in hand, though the assessee held the bonus shares of TCS for the duration which is within the time limit prescribed under clause (Ha) of the proviso to section 13(I)(d) the assessee converted the assets being bonus shares of TCS into the preferential share of Tata sons Ltd. ltd. is not a conversion into the asset/investment permissible u/s 11(5) of the if Therefore, clause (iia) of proviso to section 13(I)(d) would not rescue the assessee from of section 13(1)(d) (iii) of the Income-tax Act. The intent behind the insertion of clause (Ha) of the proviso is to exit front non permissible investment, and to convert into permissible investment and not to jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable to be set aside. In support of these contentions the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ITA. No.1154/M/2014 in the case of CIT-11 Vs. Samson Perinchery and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in ITA. No.2555/M/2012 vide order dated 28.04.2017 titled as Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions. The copy of notice dated 31.03.2015 is on the file in which the Assessing Officer nowhere specify any limb to levy the penalty because none of the charge was tick off in the notice. It is not in dispute that the penalty u/s 271(c) of the Act is leviable on account of the concealment of particular of income and on account of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Both have different connotations. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has appreciated the distinction between both the limb in the case Dilip N. Shroff 161 taxman 218 (SC). As per the record, the assessment order speaks about levying the penalty on account of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income but the notice nowhere specify any limb to le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers to both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely concealment of the particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Quite clearly, non-striking-off of the irrelevant limb in the said notice does not convey to the assessee as to which of the two charges it has to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice has been sought to be demonstrated as a reflection of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and in support, reference has been made to the following specific discussion in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra):- "83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- "12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. In the case of Lakhdir Lalji (supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for concealment of particulars of income but levied penalty for fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of non-striking off of irrelevant clause in the notice by the Assessing Officer. As noted earlier, in the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 the Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off. Quite clearly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of Assessing Officer and there is no clear and crystallised charge being conveyed to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), which has to be met by him. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case, considering the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order alongside his action of non-striking off of the irrelevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), PCIT Vs. Rasiklal M. Parikh, ITA No. 169 of 2017. We also noticed that the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by virtue of ITA. No.1430 of 2014 in which the appeal of the assessee has been admitted on the basis of following substantial question of law.:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in proceeding to hold that the income exempt under section 10 should be considered for purposes of computing the 85% application of income especially in view of the fact that it was not a question before it. (ii) Whether on the facts, relevant law and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the shares of TCS received in the year 2001-02 were held in breach of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. (iii) Whether on the facts, relevant law and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale proceeds arising from the sale of bonus shares of TCS were required to be converted into asset/investment permissible under section 11(5) and hence, clause (iia) of the proviso to section 13(1)(d) would not apply.? 10. When the appeal has been admitted by Hon'ble High Court of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermed as ordinary circumstances and would warrant exclusion of lockdown period for the purpose of aforesaid rule governing the pronouncement of the order. Accordingly, the order is being pronounced now after the re-opening of the offices. 6.3 Faced with similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal comprising-off of Hon'ble President and Hon'ble Vice President, in its recent decision titled as DCIT V/s JSW Limited (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) order dated 14/05/2020 held as under: - 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5)The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: - (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....event the spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute li....