TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t whereas the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty in the impugned order. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 101 days in assessee's appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition dated 16/12/2020 which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee, The delay has been attributed to the fact that physical order was received late and the appeal could not be filed in time due to lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic. Keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition V/s Mst. Katiji (1987; 167 ITR 471), we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Similar delay of 210 days has been noted in revenue's appeal. However, Authorization Memo takes note of the fact that as per Gazette of India, Ministry of Finance Notification No.CG-DL-E-24062020-220145-Extraordinary-Part-ll-Section-2-sub-section (ii)-No.1807, New Delhi, Wednesday, June 24, 2020 / Asadha 3, 1942 [SO No.2033(E)], the extended last date of filing of appeal would be 31/03/2021. Therefore, as per the said notification, the appeal has been filed within extended time. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd consequently, deleted the addition made in the hands of St. Xavier Education Trust. This order has attained finality since no further appeal has been filed by any party against the same. Thus, the quantum addition as offered by the assessee has finally been accepted by the revenue. 4. In the meantime, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and a notice was issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 on 31/03/2015 which was followed by another show-cause notice dated 08/08/2017 wherein the assessee was directed to defend the penalty proceedings. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income since the returned income was accepted by the Ld. AO. However, the said plea was rejected in view of the fact that if no cash was found, the income would not have come to light. The income was offered since no alternative was left with the assessee. No credible explanation could be furnished by the assessee and therefore, the penalty would be leviable against the assessee. Accordingly, in para-10 of the order, the penalty was levied by Ld. AO by observing as under: - In view of the above, it is hereby....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther addition has been made. The addition has already attained finality since no further appeal has been preferred against appellate order with respect to quantum addition. 8. So far as the legal ground is concerned, it could be seen that penalty has been initiated in the assessment order u/s 271AAB as well as u/s 271(1)(c). The copy of show cause-notice dated 31/03/2015 as issued by Ld. AO to the assessee during penalty proceedings has been placed on record. The perusal of the same would show that penalty has been proposed against both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) i.e. for concealment of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The applicable limb has not been specified. Another notice has been issued on 08/08/2017. A perusal of the same would show that penalty has been proposed by Ld. AO u/s 271AAB of the Act. Another notice has been issued on 22/01/2018 which show-cause the assessee to defend the penalty as proposed in notice dated 31/03/2015 u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As noted in preceding para-4, the penalty has finally been levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No. 2: Has Kaushalya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice'? 184. Indeed, Kaushalya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushalya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed". Kaushalya closes the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [(2007) 2 SCC 181], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei [AIR 1967 SC 1269]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 191. As a ....