TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 information is not received directly from the informant but through any organization other than Income Tax Department: or 7. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld 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 information of substantial tax evasion in a written statement in the prescribed form (Annexure - A to this Scheme) and, based upon which, an Informant Code has been allotted to him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore, Hyderabad, Vizag, Vijayawada, Bhubaneswar, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram, Kolkata, Guwahati, Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Varanasi, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Dehra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 1,40,000/- and INR 5,980/- being made to the taxable income of the cooperative society. The Assessing Officer AO in that order had in unequivocal terms noted that the society had received huge deposits from members in cash and also repaid the same in an evident violation of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act. It ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 dated 04.05.2016 and other notices issued before 29.11.2016 by the Ld. JCITs were legally valid and penalty order should have been passed within the specified date upto which the period of limitation as per the provisions of section 275(l)(c) subsisted. This has not been done. Initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing fresh SCN dated 29.11.2016 and consequent levy of impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 before the Ld. JCIT and the Ld. CIT(A) that for its default, there existed reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. It was also the submission of the assessee that in none of the earlier years any contravention of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T was pointed out to the assessee by the Department. All these arguments/plea were not judicially acceptable to the Ld. JC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat 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 provisions of section 269SS and 269T were not applicable to the assessee. It was the plea of the assessee that bonafide belief coupled with genuineness of transaction constituted reasonable cause for not invoking provisions of section 27ID and 27 IE of the Act. Xxxx xxxx xxxx 21. We do not agree with this rigid approach of the Ld. JCIT/CIT(A). In the context of constitutionality of the provisions in ADIT vs. AB Shan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../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 penalty proceedings. Neither anybody attended nor any reply received from the assessee. Another show cause notice dated 24.01.2017 also remained uncomplied. However, in response to third show cause notice dated 21.02.2017, the assessee submitted reply vide letter dated 15.03.2017 which the Ld. JCIT summarised in four pages of the penalty order in para 2 thereof. The explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. JCIT who in para 3.1 o....