TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment Year 2002-03 preferred by four different assessees, namely Mr. Hasmukh I. Gandhi as legal heir of Late Shri Nirav Gandhi, Mr. Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mr. Chintan H. Gandhi and Ms. Madhu H. Gandhi. In all the four appeals the assessee has challenged the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)'] dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. These appeals were heard together as they involved identical issues. Both the sides agreed that since the facts involved all the four appeals are identical ITA No. 5648/Mum/2011 be taken as lead matter. Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erits. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the adjudication of the additional ground does not require enquiry into facts which are not already on record and therefore, the same be admitted. She further submitted that the additional ground raised by the Assessee was legal in nature and therefore, the Assessee was permitted to raise this ground as an additional ground in the appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Opposing the request for admission of the additional ground, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, taking us through the chronology of events contained in Note/Synopsis, dated 28.08.2021, submitted that the additional ground has been raised belatedly in March, 2018 after the expiry of almost seven years from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. She submitted that on merits the issue raised in the additional ground stands decided in favour of the Assessee by the full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). She also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory : [2013] 359 ITR 565. 9. Countering the submissions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee on merits, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue referred to his Note/Synopsis, dated 28.08.2021, and submitted that the Assessing Officer had all along held that the Assessee had concealed particulars of income and therefore, the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h appeals is, thus, expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, we do not see any reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. We do not see any reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form t....