TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Income Tax Informants Scheme 2018 relating to Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-operative Thrift & Credit Service Society Ltd. Ref: Pr. DIT(Inv.)-1/Hqrs/Tech-1/83/Reward Matter/2020-21/336 dated 30.12.2020. Please refer to the subject and reference cited above. In this regard, your matter has been examined as per Income Tax Informants Rewards Scheme, 2018 and it is found that your case is not fit for allotment of informant code. Followings are the relevant Para(s) which bars informer for any reward under this scheme: "8. Circumstances under which an informant will not be eligible to get any reward: No reward shall be granted to an informant under certain circumstances which may include the following: 1. Where the information is not provided in accordance with the scheme. 2. If terms and conditions of the scheme are not fulfilled; or 3. Where the information given is not of substantial tax evasion; or 4. Where the information given is vague/non-specific and/or of general nature; or; 5. Where the information given is already available with the Income Tax Department; or: 6. Where the informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Scheme, 2018". The aforesaid Scheme appears to have been promulgated on or about 23 April 2018. As per the provisions made in the 2018 Scheme, an informant was held entitled to rewards provided the information made available to the respondents had led to the detection of substantial tax evasion. This becomes apparent from a reading of Clauses 1.3 and 2 of that Scheme which are extracted here in below:- "1.3. Scope: This scheme shall regulate the grant and payment of reward to informants in cases where information is received by a JDIT (Inv) from the informant on or after the date of issue of this Scheme that leads to detection of substantial tax evasion under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and/or the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. This scheme shall not be applicable to information regarding recovery of irrecoverable taxes as the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued separate Guidelines for the same vide F. No. 385/21/2015-IT (B) dated 26-8-2015. 2. Informant for the purposes of this Scheme "A person will be considered an informant for the purposes of this Scheme only if he has furnished specific inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 4.4. If the information is furnished by a group of informants (more than one informant working together), the prescribed form, statements, etc. must be filled and signed by all such informants, jointly and Informant code will be allotted to each of them separately. The reward payable in such cases shall be disbursed in equal proportion, unless specified otherwise by such informants at the time of furnishing information in the prescribed form (Annexure-A). 4.5. If an informant furnishes information in respect of more than one group of cases, the prescribed form at Annexure-A shall be filled and signed separately for each such group. However, in such a situation the Informant Code for such informant shall remain one and the same. 4.6. The informant shall be liable to render assistance as may be required by the JDIT (Inv.) or any other investigating officer to whom the JDIT (Inv.) concerned may assign the investigation in the matter of information given by the informant. 4.7. JDsIT (Inv.) are presently posted at Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot, Bengaluru, Mangaluru, Hubballi, Panaji, Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Raipur, Chandigarh, Mohali, Far....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d directly from the informant but through any organization other than Income Tax Department; or (vii) Where additional taxes on the undisclosed income detected are not directly attributable to the information given by the informant; or (viii) Where Income Tax Department has evidence that the information given by the Informant has been shared by him or any other person authorized by him, with any other entity/agency including media; or (ix) In respect of incidental or collateral benefit which may arise to revenue in any other case as a result of the information furnished by the informant." 9. The respondents rest their decision to deny reward to the petitioner by holding that its case would stand ousted by virtue of sub- clauses (i), (vi) and (viii) and which speaks of information not directly received from the informant. Of equal significance is clause (vii) and which speaks of cases where additional taxes on undisclosed income are not directly attributable to the information provided by the informant. 10. It is pertinent to note that an order of assessment pertaining to AY 2013-14 has been placed on the record. That discloses additions of INR 1,40,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 53 taxman.com 108 (Delhi) and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hissaria Brothers (2016) 74 taxman.com 22 (SC) wherein it is held that period of limitation for purpose of penalty is to be reckoned from date of first show cause notice issued for imposing penalty. 14.8 Strangely enough the impugned penalty orders passed by the Ld. JCIT on 24.04.2017 do not even mention the fact of issuance of first SCN dated 04.5.2016 followed by subsequent notices dated 26.07.2016 and 29.09.2016. The Ld. CIT(A), however observes at page 65 of his appellate order that the penalty proceedings which had been initiated by issue of notice dated 04.05.2016 stood nullified as were other notices issued till 29.11.2016 for the reason that the earlier notices did not carry the correct name of the assessee and its PAN. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded the finding that such deficiency/defect does not get cured even as per provisions of section 292B pf the Act. It is rather uncommon that the Revenue, sought to use the provisions of section 292B against itself. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the initial first SCN dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f transaction is not a valid plea, as even in genuine transactions, transacting in cash is not allowed. We deliberated. In our opinion, it is imperative to keep in mind the legislative intent in order to judicially appreciated a fact situation wherein the loans/deposits brought in by the assessee were not to explain its unaccounted cash and there was no material on record to suggest that by way of accepting loans/deposits in cash the assessee had introduced its unaccounted cash in books of account in the garb of loans. There is no allegation at all against the assessee that by accepting loans/deposits in cash its intention ever was to avoid payment of tax or to defraud Revenue. 18. The case of the assessee has along been that it is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking by providing credit facility to its members and as such neither section 2^9SS nor section 269T of the Act is applicable to it. Since inception 63 years ago the assessee was under a bonafide and genuine belief that it being a credit thrift society could accept from its members sums in cash and advance to them such sums in cash and that there is no prohibition to do so. The assessee pleaded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p in view the provisions of section 273B of the Act. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 20.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), drawing his attention to the provisions of section 273B of the Act, it was submitted that there is no finding in the assessment order that the transactions made by the assessee in breach of provisions of section 269SS or 269T were not a genuine transaction. Rather the penalties have been imposed stating that genuineness is no consideration, implying thereby that the genuineness of the transaction is accepted. The assessment order passed under section 143(3) after scrutiny of the books of account nowhere recorded any finding that the transactions made by the assessee was malafide and with the sole object to conceal or undisclose the money. Mere technical mistake not resulting, in any loss of revenue may not invite harsh penalty. The transactions are attributable to various exigencies of business carried on by the assessee constituted a 'reasonable cause' as contemplated under section 273B of the Act. It was also the submission of the assessee that the impugned penalty has never been' imposed upon the assessee so the assessee was under bonafide belief that pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s got discretionary power." 13. It ultimately came to record the following conclusions:- "25. In the light of the above discussion and following the precedents we are of the view that the assessee has discharged the onus which lay upon it to establish, the existence of reasonable cause for violation of the provision of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. In our opinion, the explanation offered by the assessee before the Ld. JCIT/CIT(A) was reasonable but was discarded merely because they proceeded on the premise that breach of condition provided under section 269SS and 269T shall necessarily lead to penal consequences which understanding in our humble opinion is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, cancel the penalty levied under section 271D and 271E of the Act. The ground No. 1, 3 85 4 are decided in favour of the assessee." 14. Of significance is the following recital of fact which stands encapsulated in Para 4 of the order of the Tribunal:- "4. Perusal of the penalty orders dated 24.04.2017 reveal that on reference by the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") vide letter dated 28.11.2016 the Ld. JCIT issued show cause notice dated 29.11.2016 initiating penal....