TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nience, we shall take up the ITA No. 5009/Mum/2018 for the A.Y 2009-10.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting To Rs. 11,124/-. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order leaving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant company was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from submission or furnishing of supporting evidence before assessment and appellant proceedings wi th respect to quantum appeals. 4. The appellant company prays that a. Penalty le vied u/s 271(1)(c) may be deleted. b. Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,391/-and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.11.2011. Subsequently, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR filed a letter stating that the assessee has challenged the quantum additions of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and prayed for the abeyance of levy of penalty till disposal of appeal. Whereas the CIT(A) vide order dated 12.12.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Subsequently the A.O issued showcase notice dated 12.02.2015 for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed submissions on 25.02.2015 explaining that the addition of Rs. 36,000/-as rental income is not justified as the property remained vacant from earlier years and rental income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the penalty cannot be automatic and support our opinion relying on the decision of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 0565 (Kar) and the principles as under:- "In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. (c) Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. (d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(l)(c) is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of such tax or such tax liability came to be admitted and if 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 explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. (m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est 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. 5.Further,the penalty levied by the A.O for concealment of income is beyond the possibility of the assessee to obtain the confirmation as the tenant has already left the premises in the A.Y 2008-09 which was submitted in the penalty proceedings. The A.O cannot ask the assessee to do a impossible task considering the facts and circumstances. We relay on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an appeal with the Tribunal. 8. None appeared of behalf of the assessee. We heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the sole crux of the issue is with regard to levy of penalty by the A.O on two points being none submission of evidences for claim of expenditure and none receipt of rental income. The assessee has explained that due to non availability of staff and lull in business operations and the judicial proceedings at Mumbai, the directors and staff are not available at registered office. But The assessee has incurred the expenditure which cannot be doubted and the assessee has filed the explanations in the penalty proceedings. Similarly in respect of rental income, the assessee has mentio....