TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 3,51,546/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (r) 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 3,51,546/- on the grounds that the assessee had not filed the return of income u/s. 139(1), and that the undisclosed income had been offered by the assessee due to search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and also that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was carried out upon Valuable Group of cases and its associate concerns on 10.04.2013 which were engaged in the business of Media Technology & Infrastructure Development Shri Sanjay Gaikwad of Thane alongwith Narendra Hete of Mumb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute 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 taken the action in view of provisions u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act but the notice nowhere specify any limb to levy the penalty. The notice is not justifiable in view of the law settled by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-11 Vs. Samson Perinchery. At the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the finding of the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA. No. 2555/M/2012 titled as Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2). The relevant para is hereby reproduced below: "8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalty to the extent specified if, in the course of any proceedings under the Act, he is satisfied tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. It was also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. (See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718]" 9. Factually speaking, the aforesaid plea of assessee is borne out of record and having regard to the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the notice in the instant case does suffer from the vice of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In fact, a similar proposition was also enunciated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtile 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 furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court quashed the penalty since the basis for the penalty proceedings disappeared when it was held that there was no suppression of income. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has struck down the penalty imposed in the case of N. N. Subramania Iyer Vs. Union of India (supra), when there is no indication in the notice for what contravention the petitioner was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. In the instant case, the AO did not specify the charge for which penalty proceedings were initiated and further he has issued a notice meant for calling the assessee to furnish the return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee qua Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not firm and, therefore, the proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is himself unsure and assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act he has to respond. 14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 is untenable as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind having regard to the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of such income is otherwise disclosed to the [principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] before the said date; or (2) he in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article of thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub section (1) of Section 139 and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income." 9. The High Court of Madras in the case of S.D.V. Chandru (supra) held that in a case where the assessee had not disclosed his income in the returns filed for the previous year which have ended prior to the date of the search and, in the statement given under Section 132(4) the assessee admitted the receipt of undisclosed income for those years and also specified the manner in which such income had been derived and thereafter pays the tax on that undisclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of waiver of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to file his return of income on 31st July, 1987 and pay tax thereon particularly when the assessee concealed on August 1, 1987 that there was concealment of income. The third condition under clause (2) was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such undisclosed income. However, no time limit for payment of such tax stood prescribed under clause (2). The only requirement stipulated in the third condition was for the assessee to "pay tax together with interest". In the present case, the third condition also stood fulfilled. The assessee has paid tax with interest upto the date of payment. The only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment. Clause (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the assessee should pay tax on income disclosed in the statement under Section 132(4)." 11. Even, the High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Abdul Rashid (supra) has held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid facts of the case and also the principle laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant more particularly the principle laid down in the case of Gebilal Kanhailal (supra) and Abdul Rashid (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on the income shown in the return filed under Section 153 of the I.T. Act. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S.D.V. Chandu (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Explanation 5(2) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of the CIT (A) is restored. The question of law involved in this appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." In the case of titled as PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 taxmann.com 96 (Del). The following finding has been given as under.:- "9. Counsel for the revenue submitted that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - ** ** (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty- ** ** (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits." 13. At the outset, it must be noted that pursuant to the search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the mere fact that some figure or some particulars have been disclosed by itself, even if takes out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Mere omission from the return of an item of receipt does neither amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In order that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income." 16. Thus, despite the fact that there is no requirement of proving mens rea specifically, it is clear that the word "conceal" inherently carries with it the requirement of establishing that there was a conscious act or omission on the part of the assessee to hide his true income. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, then if the assessment order accepts the offer of the assessee, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38 taxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed revised returns after search has been conducted, and such revised return has been accepted by the A.O., then merely by virtue of the fact that such return showed a higher income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically imposed. 19. The whole matter can be examined from a different perspective as well. Section 153A provides the procedure for completion of assessment where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A after 31.05.2003. In such cases, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to suc....