AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances of the case, penalty order passed by the A.O is illegal and invalid inasmuch as the show cause notice issued by the A.O is illegal and not in accordance with provisions of law. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating the correct position of law. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or ground/s of appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016, wherein after making an addition of Rs. 4,94,743/- towards unaccounted money introduced by the assessee in his books of accounts in the garb of long term capital gain (LTCG) that was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act, assessed his income at Rs. 19,58,383/-. Also, the A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars with respect to the aforesaid addition of Rs. 4,94,743/- made in the hands of the assessee. 3. The A.O after culmination of the assessment, therein vide his order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 30.12.2016 imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,53,000/- for furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings, thus, it was incorrect on his part to claim that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to his. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that now when the assessee in compliance to the SCN, dated 30.12.2016 r.w SCN, dated 22.05.2017 had submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was called for in his hands, therefore, it was beyond comprehension that as to on what basis he could thereafter claim that he was not validly put to notice about the default for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was sought to be imposed on him. 8. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. Admittedly, on a perusal of the SCN dated 30.12.2016, it stands revealed that the Assessing Officer had failed to strike-off the irrelevant default while calling upon the assessee to explain as to why he may not be subjected to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the SCN dated 30.12.2016, Page 13 of APB is culled out as under: It may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid "Show cause" notice(s), dated 30.12.2016 and 22.05.2017 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed in his case, therefore, the assessee was not validly put to notice as regards the default/defaults for which he was called upon to explain that as to why penalty may not be imposed on he under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, and are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O in both the aforesaid SCN's dated 30.12.2016 and 22.05.2017 had failed to point out the defaults for which penalty was sought to be imposed on the assessee. In our considered view, as both of the two defaults envisaged in Sec. 271(1)(c) i.e 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' are separate and distinct defaults which operate in their respective independent and exclusive fields, therefore, it was obligatory for the A.O to have clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which he was being called upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the nature of quasi criminal proceedings, therefore, the assessee as a matter of a statutory right is supposed to know the exact charge for which he is being called upon to explain that as to why the same may not be imposed on him. The non-specifying of the charge in the 'Show cause' notice not only reflects the non-application of mind by the A.O, but in fact defeats the very purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as envisaged under Sec. 274(1) of the I.T Act. We find that the fine distinction between the said two defaults contemplated in Sec. 271(1)(c), viz. 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' had been appreciated at length by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments passed in the case of Dilip & Shroff Vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 228 and T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgments had observed that the two expressions, viz. 'concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' have a different connotation. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the non-striking off the irrelevant limb in the notice clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154 of 2014; Dt. 05.01.2017)(Bom). The Hon'ble High Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunathja Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), which in turn had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the A.O and had, inter alia, observed, that the failure of the AO to strike-off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under Sec. 274 of the Act which is in a standard proforma clearly indicates a non-application of mind by the A.O while issuing the notice. Further, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT (Central), Bengaluru Vs. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 tamnn.com 249 (SC), by drawing support from its earlier order in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) and PCIT Vs. New Era Sova Mine (2020) 420 ITR 376 (Bom), had observed that AO while issuing show-cause should clearly indicate that as per him the case of the assessee involves ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is quite consistent with the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Soya Mine (supra) and therefore, warrants no interference." The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order had thereafter been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. (2021) 124 taxmann.com 249 (SC). Also, the "Full bench" of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh V. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (2021) 280 Taxman 334 (Bombay), had observed that where the assessment order clearly records a satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other; or both grounds mentioned in Sec. 271(1)(c), but there is a defect in the SCN, wherein the AO had failed to strike-off the irrelevant default, then, the same would vitiate the penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had held as under: " 173. We, however, accept that the Revenue, often, adopts a pernicious practice of sending an omnibus, catch-all, printed notice. It contains both relevant and irrelevant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the issue, it requires the assessee to look for the precise charge in the penalty proceedings not only from the statutory note but from every other source of information, such as the assessment proceedings. That said, first, penalty proceedings may originate from the assessment proceedings, but they are independent; they do not depend on the assessment proceeding for their outcome. Assessment proceedings hardly influence the penalty proceedings, for assessment does not automatically lead to a penalty 176. Second, not always do we find the assessment proceedings revealing the grounds of penalty proceedings. Assessment order need not contain a specific, explicit finding of whether the conditions mentioned in section 271(1)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanations 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction as to the grounds for penalty proceedings. Indeed, the Apex Court in CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [ 73], has explained the scope of section 271(1)(c) thus: "[Explanation 1, appended to section 27(1) provides that if that person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false, or the explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect in the notice- and that prevention takes just a tick mark. Prudence demands prevention is better than cure. 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(l)(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 the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Question No.3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma 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". Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. 188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal had in absence of said statutory requirement rightly vacated the penalty proceedings. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT, Panaji Vs. Goa Dourdo Promotions (P) Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 268 (Bombay) relying upon its earlier orders in the case of, viz.(i). Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation P. Ltd. (supra); (ii). Samson Perinchery (supra); and (iii). New Era Sova Mine (supra), had observed that recording of satisfaction by AO in relation to any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee in notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) is the sine qua non for initiation of such proceedings. Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in Ashok Sahahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2018) 99 taxman.com 374 (Pune), had held that where in a notice issued u/s 274 of the Act the AO had used conjunction "or" to mention both limbs, i.e, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and charge for levy of penalty was not explicitly clear from notice, then, the same was to be held as bad in law and penalty was liable to be set-aside. On a similar footing was the view taken by the ITAT, Mumbai "B" Bench in ACIT Vs. Bhushan Kamanayan Vora (....