TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Mayank Jain for the respondent/assessee. Perused the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1812 & 1844/Bang/2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under: The appeal is preferred by the assessee / respondent against the separate orders dated 24.09.2013 of the CIT (Appeals)-VI, Bengaluru for the Assessment Year 2006-07 confirming the penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961"). 4. It is relevant to refer to the impugned order dated 29.07.2016, which is challenged under this appeal. Undisputedly the Assessing Officer has not identified in the notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. These are the contentions made and the same were considered by the aforesaid Tribunal keeping in view the various citations which were facilitated, and also extracted in the impugned order. "The order of the learned lower authorities u/s. 271 (1) (c) is liable to be cancelled for the reason that the notice u/s. 274 does not strike off the portion relating to levy of penalty for delay in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the Assessment Year 2008-09 instead of not disclosing the correct particulars of her income for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer has levied a minimum penalty of Rs. 6,50,00,000/-, the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeal stood dismissed. 8. It is further stated in the order under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, dated 29.06.2010, wherein the case of the assessee was notified to this Circle consequent to the action under Section 132 conducted on 26.10.2007 at the above Office premises of the assessee/respondent at Ballari. Consequently, the proceeding under Section 153A r/w Section 143 (3) of I.T Act, was initiated for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the assessment was completed on 31.12.2009 on the total income of Rs. 26,02,20,920/-, which included an unexplained investments made through cash payments to the extent of Rs. 18,75,00,000/- representing difference in consideration between the amount as per the copies of sale agreement for the purchase of land at Lillipur Hamlet, Hyderabad purchased by Shri G. Janardhan Reddy on behalf of three companies in which he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007-08. The fact that the additional consideration of Rs. 18.75 crores in purchase of the land at Lillipur Hamlet, Hyderabad was funded by the assessee firm has been further accepted. The assessee refers to explanation 5A to Section 271 (1) (c) and claims that it only shifts the initial burden to the assessee by a deeming fiction. The assessee further argues that there must be a clear finding that the assessee/respondent had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further, in the assessee's case, a return under Section 139 was filed on 31.10.2006, which was processed and selected for scrutiny for Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee's contention that there should be a clear finding that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee is required to consider the explanation of the assessee and the explanation must be proved false before imposing the penalty under the aforesaid section by invoking explanation. Even going by explanation 1(b) to section 271 (1) (c), the penalty is leviable if a person offers an explanation for which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? ii.) Whether omission of the Assessing Officer to explicitly mention that the penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? iii.) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty on the basis of the notice issued under Section 274 without taking into consideration that, in the order of penalty the Assessing Officer has specified that the Assessee has concealed particulars of income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income? iv.) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty without considering the deeming provisions 'Explanation 5A to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act?' 13. Learned standing counsel for the appellants/revenue namely Shri Y.V. Raviraj taken us through the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad in law and invalid without observing the amendment to Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the penalty initiated by the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction of the same. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not noticing the fact that the Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned in his order that the assessee has concealed and also furnished accurate particulars of income. He further contended that in this appeal intervention of this Court is required and if not intervened, certainly there would be some miscarriage of justice. 16. This contention has been taken by the learned standing counsel for the appellants by referring to various provisions relating Explanation 5A to Section 271 (1) (c). The explanation only shifts the initial burden to the assessee/respondent by a deeming fiction. It is indisputable that the following ingredients are to be satisfied in order that the penalty is imposed on an assessee under the aforesaid provision. However, there must be a clear finding that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The penalty is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds as under: "4. In CIT vs. P.M. Shah (supra) the High Court at Bombay observed that the Explanation to s 271 (1) (c) created a legal fiction. It was that the assessee would be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof in the circumstances set out in the Explanation. But for such legal fiction, it could never have been said that there was any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income simply because the returned income was less than 80 per cent of the assessed income. The Explanation shifted the burden of proof on the assessee. Therefore, it said, "when the Explanation is being resorted to by the ITO or by the IAC in penalty proceedings, it is essential that the assessee must be informed that penalty proceedings against him are being commenced under the Explanation to s. 271 (1) (c)." It added, "The 1AC could not have proceeded to levy the penalty under the Explanation to s. 271 (1)(c) in the absence of any initiation of penalty proceedings under the Explanation to s. 271(1) (c). These are penalty proceedings and the section must be strictly construed. The assessee, in our view, had no opportunity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is purely a question of fact. Apart from that, the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised the plea that on account of a defect in the notice, they were put to prejudice. All violations will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. If the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter. This was never the plea of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before this Court when the Tax Case Appeals were filed and it was only after 10 years, when the appeals were listed for final hearing, this issue is sought to be raised. Thus on facts, we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment' was not declared. On 31.12.2009, assessment order was passed under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the Act, 1961 held on money of Rs. 18.75 crore should be brought to tax during the Assessment Year 2006-07 as the properties were registered during the year. 23. It is further contended that notice issued under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 that the assessee has concealment particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of such income does not have any substance. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred in respect of jurisdiction that it is important that the assumption of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in a proceedings has to be identified before notice under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 is issued. A bare perusal of the assessment order does not disclose that there was this satisfaction record of concealment of particulars of income as per Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961. Subsequent to the coming into force of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed a similar view when interpreting Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 after amendment in D.M. Manasvi Vs. CIT reported in (1972)86 ITR 557 (SC)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the revenue to the assessee. Each of the explanations provided to Section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act contemplates one eventuality in which the assessee can take recourse. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that in this case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assumption of jurisdiction is erroneous and not in consonance with law. Therefore, the second aspect that is regarding onus of proof has not been addressed. The same can be left open. Therefore, in view of the facts and legal position stated above, the question is to be answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. 25. It is further contended that Ennoble Constructions addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Income Tax Department, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru in subject caption reply to penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, wherein it is specifically contended that balance as per the bank statement and balance as per bank book maintained by the assessee may not tally for many reasons. In the present case, cheques have been issued to the extent of Rs.1,14,42,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Nos. 1447 to 1450 of 1969, dated 19th September 1972 reported in (1972) 40 CCH 0314 ISCC, wherein it is held regarding penalty under Section 271 (1) (c), the initiation of proceedings - before feeling satisfied for initiating penalty proceedings, ITO need not issue notice to assessee and it is sufficient if, after being satisfied in the course of assessment proceedings that penalty provisions are attracted, ITO issues consequential notice, the fact that the ITO has to refer the case to the IAC if, the minimum imposable penalty exceeds the sum of rupees one thousand in a case falling under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 would not show that the proceedings in such a case cannot be initiated by the ITO. According to clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 271 of the Act, if the ITO or the AAC in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay in addition to the amount of tax by way of penalty a sum calculated in accordance with clause (iii) of that sub-section. Section 274 of the Act prescribes the procedure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est said to have been paid thereon as income. Further, the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c), concealment recording of satisfaction Section 271(1) contemplates a finding as regards satisfaction of availability of grounds under Clause (c) being recorded during assessment proceedings as its income, AO nowhere recorded his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income initiation of penalty proceedings was bad and consequently penalty is set aside. However, the contention of the assessee that the amount was surrendered on the condition that penalty would not be levied is liable to be rejected solely for the reason that the assessee did not appear before the AO in penalty proceedings. 30. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the reliance of a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory, reported in (2012) 83 CCH 0282 Kar HC, wherein at paragraph No. 39, following the judgment and other case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Dharmendra's case summarized the principles as (a) Mens rea is an essential or sine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice are offended if the show cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee." 31. It is further contended that the penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, it is an independent and separate aspect of the proceedings. The findings recorded in the assessment proceedings insofar as "concealment of income" and "furnishing of incorrect particulars" would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order passed by the Tribunal whether on facts SLP filed against the decision of High Court was to be dismissed. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC), wherein held the scope of Section 274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for penalty procedure for imposition of (conditions precedent) assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 Taxman.com 250 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the High Court held that the matter was covered by the aforesaid decision of Division Bench and therefore, there was no substantial question of law arouse for determination since there was no merit in SLP filed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such a suit. Explanation V.-Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI.-Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating . Explanation VII.-The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII. -An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent sui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first mentioned Court is subordinate. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code. Explanation.-The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section" 38. Whereas, it is relevant to refer Articles 20 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: "20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.- (1) No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offense, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. (3) No person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 39. Referring to the materials facilitated by the learned standing counsel for the appellants/revenue namely Shri Y.V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal in respect of the ground remains undisposed. But in the instant case, the appellant who is revenue has approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it has given a finding relating to the facts. It could have been entertained by the High Court on the inference, that the issue, which was undecided, has been decided against the assessee, a view sometimes taken by some Courts. 42. A decision of the Tribunal that there was no stock of difference as inferred by the Assessing Officer and that valuation adopted for stock as cost or market price, whichever is lower cannot be faulted, that such decision cannot give rise to question of law, since the appeal has been preferred by the appellants/revenue challenging the order passed by the ITAT. 43. Keeping in view the materials which secured by the revenue relating to the substantial question of law, which has been raised in this appeal, the appeal cannot be entertained and dismissal of appeal arising out of same order of Tribunal by the Division Bench of High Court is binding and other appeals from same order to be dismissed as not involving a referable or appealable question of law. Counter to the arguments advanced by the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the stage of admission, it is not necessary that there should be a preliminary hearing for admission as was the practice under the reference procedure earlier though such a practice is not barred. The High Court may suo motu without hearing the respondent refuse admission on the ground that there is no substantial question of law involved while dismissing the appeal on this ground, also endorse the finding on merits on the basis of reasoning in the order of the Tribunal. The respondent cannot find fault with this procedure since his interest is protected. Needless to point out that in case the decision is likely to be adverse to him, it would be necessary to hear him by providing an opportunity under the law. 45. Section 260A reveals that the High court has power to remand a matter, if it is necessary. Where the Tribunal allowed a claim of assessee without discussion, matter was remanded wherein an estimated sum of arrived at as net profit from undisclosed income without basis, the matter was remanded for disposal under Section 260A. In the instant case, we are here to dwell in detail about the issue relating to substantial questions of law and even dwelling in detail about the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncerned, it is relevant to states that there is no penalty in the absence of positive income; the word income in clause (c) refers to positive income only. Evasion of tax is sin co non. For imposition of penalty, if there is no taxable income or tax assessed for the payment during the particular year, the question of evasion and consequent penalty does not arise. The penalty cannot be imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Clause (c) of the provision deals two specific offences i.e., to say concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases, there may be overlapping of two offences. In the instant case, the proceedings initiated against respondent/assessee keeping in view the provision of Section 271 (1) (c) of the I.T Act, 1961. Whereas the ITAT if the fact finding authority and a finding has been rendered based upon the materials, which were secured by the authority during the course of investigation. The penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and independent. The assessment proceedings are taxing proceedings and the pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itutes good and relevant evidence. Where the penalty was levied on the ground that additions have been made to the income as unexplained investment and such additions were deleted in appeal filed against the assessment, cancellation of penalty was valid. While penalty does not follow every addition, addition is the basis for penalty. 51. Insofar as a finding of concealment must be recorded, the levy of penalty is not a matter of course. Before a penalty is levied under this clause, a finding must be recorded that the assessee has been guilty of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the year in question. Thus, where the assessee who is arraigned as respondent in this matter, produced certain materials relating to the books of accounts and assessment was completed by applying flat rate for estimating income. Therefore, in the instant case, it does not call for any interference and even seeks intervention of this Court. 52. It is also to be said that there is need for proper initiation of penalty proceedings that the penalty proceedings are required to be initiated during the course of assessment, though they are independent proceedings. The initiatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y under the relevant provisions of IT Act. However, the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee to prove that the explanation given by him is correct, and if it is not discharged, penalty can be levied under Section 271 can be invoked at any stage. Therefore, the scope of Section 271 (1) (c) it was answered by rendering a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the ITAT is the tax finding body to assess the relevance and sufficiency of the materials and its conclusion that the assessee has discharged the onus would be one of the fact, unless there shall be found false on the part of the respondent/assessee, the penalty proceedings cannot be initiated, wherein a finding of fact as rendered by the ITAT. Even conversely where the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's claim for depreciation, the Tribunal was justified in deleting certain penalty and consequently directed the Tribunal to consider even though the scope of Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. In the instant case, even though the penalty concept was there, it is to be termed as a protective measure, but the ITAT has answered to the facts which is the fact finding authority. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not ari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive of Section 271 (1) (c). 59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various grounds set out therein. If the order passed by the authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated, in the notice to be issued under section 274, they could conveniently refer to the said order which contains the satisfaction of the authority which has passed the order. However, if the existence of the conditions could not be discerned from the said order and if it is a case of relying on deeming provision contained in Explanation 1 or in Explanation 1(B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section 274 makes it clear that the assessee has a right to contest such proceedings and should have full opportunity to meet the case of the Department and show that the conditions stipulated in section 271 (1) (c) do not exist as such he is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable. 61. The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether it is a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The apex court in the case of Ashok Pai reported in [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering Works reported in [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj) and the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issues in respect of ITAT whereby the impugned order has been challenged under this appeal by the appellant/revenue. But the ITAT substantially considered the version of assessee/respondent. Therefore, the revenue/appellate authority has preferred this appeal under the relevant provision of Section 260A of the IT Act by raising substantial questions of law as stated above. 59. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal and so also having perused the materials and dwelling in detail about the matter in question and also the substantial question, the right of appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, wherein it is the scope and contentment, as in the case of CIT vs. Woondur Jupitar Chits (P) Limited reported in 213 ITR 73 had pointed out that the provisions of 1961 Act providing for reference on a question of law arising out of an order of the Tribunal were Archaic and therefore there was an eminent need for rationalization of the same. Accordingly, the parliament vide Finance (2) Act, 1998 inserted inter alia Sections 260A and 260B in Chapter - XX of the 1961 Act to provide for an appeal against the orders of Tribunal directly to the High Court, within wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate that it is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala's Law and Practice of Income Tax, Vol.II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus states that a question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; or (ii) it is of general importance; (iii) it is an open question in the sense that the issue has not been settled by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court; (iv) it is not free from difficulty; or (v) it calls for a discussion for an alternative view. The findings are based on evidence; (vi) relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration; (vii) inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration (viii) legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence; or (ix) The evidence has been misread. 63. These tests are stated to be illustrative and in no way exhaustive of the powers of the High Court to entertain an appeal, if there is other substantive ground of law. It hardly needs to be stated that a provision for appeal should be liberally construed and read in a reasonable & practical manner. 64. A Coordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usively' and 'incurred for the business'. The burden of proving that the expenditure is incurred 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is on the Assessee' vide JASWANT vs. CIT reported in 212 ITR 24. The question whether an item of expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of Assessee's business has to be decided on the basis of evidentiary material that prima facie establishes these 'building blocks'. 66. The question on which the appeal is admitted involves, in the first place, the ascertainment of facts as to the business expenditure in question, and in the second, the application of the correct principle of law to the fact so ascertained. Therefore, essentially such a question is only a mixed question of fact & law as observed by the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GREAVES COTTON reported in 68 ITR 200 (207). Added, there is a certain difference between an ordinary question of law on the one hand and a mixed question of fact & law, on the other vide JANARDHANA RAO vs. JCIT reported in 273 ITR 50. Ordinarily, to answer a question of law of the kind, there is no need to consult the statute book; such a question can be answered j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty proceedings, the penalty order passed by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer and delete the penalty on account of wrong initiation of penalty proceedings. Since the penalty proceedings are quashed, we find no justification to deal with the appeals on merits, as it becomes academic. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 70. In totality of the circumstances of the case relating to the facts, the ITAT is a fact finding authority insofar a search and seizure action was conducted in the case of Sri.Gali Janardhan Reddy on 26.10.2007 including the premises business of M/s. Ennoble Constructions, Ballari. In response to the notices under Section 153A return of income came to be filed. In the absence of any material on record specifically to show the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment. Therefore, the ITAT was considered the scope of provision of the IT Act, 1961, as in the instant appeal, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able presumption. If the authority after hearing the assessee and looking into the material produced in the said proceeding before him, satisfies, perhaps holds that there is no concealment of income, then the question of penalty would not arise. 72. However, keeping in view the contention made by the learned Standing Counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for the appellant / Revenue and so also the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for the respondent / Assessee, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that the counsel for the respondent / Assessee had relied the judgment of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. Vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY AND ORS. (MANU / KA/ 2416/2012), wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has extensively addressed the issues relating to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and more particularly, has addressed the issues relating to Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961, by referring to so many reliances. 73. Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR vs. M/S. ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION (I.T.A.No.383 OF 2016) dated 20.07.2022, has addressed the issues relating to the provisions of Secti....