News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. (‘ALIL’) 202-206, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Vs. Addl CIT, Special Range-1, Room No. 159A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001
 Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No. 40, Whirlpool House, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, LTU, Delhi
 Smt. Abha Gupta, 292, Tagore Park Extn. Model Town-I, Delhi – 110 009. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20 (4), New Delhi.
 Raj Kumar Sharma, 157, Dda Office Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110 055 Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), New Delhi .
 Evergain Securities (P) Ltd., C/o Raj Kumar&Associates,Ca L-7a(Lgf), South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 8(4), New Delhi
 DCIT Circle 17(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. Mosaic India Pvt. Ltd. Y-65, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016
 Gaurav Garg, Near Sharma Pathology, Jarcha Road, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Noida.
 Shri Karam Chand, s/o. Shri Malik Ditta, C/o. M/s. Kissan Agro Hospital, Fatehabad. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Fatehabad.
 Dynamix India Drill – Con Co. G-4, 208-209, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 Vs. DCIT Circle – 62 (1) New Delhi
 M/s Jbm Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax New Delhi
 Shri Harish Chander Kapoor, Prop. M/s. Lucky Enterprises, Gurgaon. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (1), Gurgaon.

Subhash Chand Gupta & Sons (HUF) 43/1, Rajpura Road, New Delhi-110054 Vs. ITO Ward 35 (4) New Delhi
October, 07th 2019

Referred Sections:
Section 274. of the Act
Section 271 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.
Section 142{1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271(l)(c)

Referred Cases / Judgments:
CIT Vs. M/s. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning reported in 359 ITR 565
CIT Vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald reported in (2016) 73 taxman.com 241,
Shobhit Gupta (HUF) Vs. ITO vide ITA No.6765/Del/2018 order dated 03.04.2019
CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts reported in 322 ITR 158
INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.
N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC)
PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited in ITA No.475/2019 order dated 02.08.2019

       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 DELHI BENCH `SMC', NEW DELHI

      BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                          ITA No.853/Del/2019
                       Assessment Year: 2014-15
     Subhash Chand Gupta &            ITO
     Sons (HUF)                   Vs Ward ­ 35 (4)
     43/1, Rajpura Road,              New Delhi
     New Delhi-110054
     PAN No.AABHS2009G
     (APPELLANT)                      (RESPONDENT)

     Appellant by                   Sh. P. C. Yadav, Advocate
     Respondent by                  Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

     Date of hearing:               13/08/2019
     Date of Pronouncement:         07/10/2019

                              ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:


       This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the
order dated 27.07.2018 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to
A. Y. 2014-15.
2.     Levy of penalty of Rs.3,59,591/- by the Assessing Officer
u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A)
is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.
3.     Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an HUF
and filed the return of income on 29.07.2014 declaring total
income of Rs.12,47,740/-. The Assessing Officer completed the
assessment u/s.143(3) on 23.12.2016 determining the total
income      at      Rs.18,57,743/-     wherein     he     made   addition      of
Rs.18,57,743/- u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the IT Act on account
of sale of shares of M/s.CCL International Limited which were
purchased at a cost of Rs.6,10,000/- but sold at Rs.18,57,743/-
within a period of 8 months from the date of purchase and on
which concessional rate of tax was claimed.                   The Assessing
Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of
the IT Act.          Rejecting the various explanation given by the
assessee and relying on various decisions the Assessing Officer
levied penalty of Rs.3,59,591/- u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. being
100% of the tax sought to be evaded. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A)
sustained the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer.
4.     Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in
appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of
appeal :-
1.     The order of CIT (A) is bad in law and on facts.

2.   The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the proceedings of
     271(1)(C) are void ab initio as the same has been initiated on the
     basis of non specific notice issued under section 274.

3.   The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the impugned
     penalty has been initiated and levied without asking any reply
     from the assessee/ without issuing any show cause to explain,
     during the course of assessment proceeding as evident from order
     sheet entry.

4.   The CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO
     is void ab initio as the Ld AO has failed to specify the charge
     against the assessee under which the notice under section 274 of

                                                                          Page | 2
     the Act has been issued.

5.   The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that furnishing of
     inaccurate particular and concealment of income are two separate
     connotation and hence it is incumbent upon the AO to specify the
     particular charge against such assessee who has to be penalized
     under section 271(1)(C) of the Act.

6.   Without Prejudice to the above the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate
     that all particulars of income were fully disclosed by the assessee
     at the time of filing of return of Income and hence it cannot be said
     that assessee has filed wrong particulars of his income.

7.   The CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that assessee has fully
     disclosed the income from short term capital gain in its (ROI) filed
     originally and hence it is not a case of concealment of income.

8.   Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has erred in law and
     on facts in sustaining the penalty under the provisions of section
     271 (1)(C) ignoring that it is a case where there is only change of
     head on income and no concealment of income at all.

9.   The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the levy of
     penalty of Rs 3,59,591/- ignoring that assessee has made
     disclosed the particulars of income in an open and bonafide
     manner.

10. The assessee craves leave to add alter modify and ground of appeal at
     the time of hearing of the appeal.

5.     The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted
that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer at the time of
initiation of penalty proceedings, which is jurisdictional notice,
shows that it is not clear as to under which limb of the
provisions the penalty has been levied.                 Relying on various

                                                                             Page | 3
decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High
Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning
reported in 359 ITR 565 and in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. SSA's
Emerald reported in (2016) 73 taxman.com 241, he submitted
that the penalty so levied was held to be not valid when the
inappropriate words in the notice were not stuck off.        He
submitted that the SLP filed by the revenue against the order of
the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to the decision of the
coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of the sister
concern namely Shobhit Gupta (HUF) Vs. ITO vide ITA
No.6765/Del/2018 order dated 03.04.2019 he submitted that
under identical circumstances the Tribunal has cancelled the
penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the
CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that this being a covered
matter in favour of the assessee the penalty so levied and
sustained by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and,
therefore, has to be deleted.
6. So far as the merit of the case is concerned he submitted that the assessee has shown the transaction of sale and purchase of shares in an open and bonafide manner and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income. Further the assessee has already paid the tax by surrendering the amount and the various documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been found to be false or untrue. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Page | 4 Petroproducts reported in 322 ITR 158 and various other decisions he submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had surrendered the income of Rs.18,57,743/- to be taxed under the head "income from other source" as against the claim of "short term capital gain". The assessee could not contradict the findings given by the Assessing Officer that assessee had obtained accommodation entry to introduce its unaccounted income in the form of short term capital gain on penny stocks of M/s. CCL International. Relying on various decisions the Ld. DR submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld and the ground raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 8. So far as the non striking of the inappropriate words in the penalty notice is concerned he submitted that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has clearly mentioned the twin defaults i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also concealment of particulars of income. The penalty order also mentions both the defaults and, therefore, the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not clearly mentioned the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated is not correct. 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find the Page | 5 Assessing Officer in the instant case has levied penalty of Rs.3,59,591/- u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act which has been upheld by the CIT(A). It is the submission of the Counsel for the assessee that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act does not specify the exact charge for which penalty has been levied. The copy of the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act 1961 dated 23.12.2016 reads as under :- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. "To, M/s Subhash Chand Gupta and Sons (IIUF) 43/1, Rajpur Road Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 PAN: AABHS2009G Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2014-15 it appears to me that you:- Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142{1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.09.2016. *Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11:30 A.M. on 23.01.2017 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If Page | 6 you do not wish to avail of this an opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271 of l.T. Act, 1961. (Archana Chaturvedi) Income Tax Officer Ward-35(4), New Delhi" 10. I find under identical circumstances the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sohbit Gupta (HUF) a sister concern of the assessee has cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act by observing as under :- 6. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal are not in dispute and the Assessing Officer in the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(l)(c) dated 23.12.2016 has not specified the exact charge, viz., whether the charge is that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or "concealed particulars of income" by striking out the irrelevant portion of printed show cause notice. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248(SC) dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whereby identical issue was decided in favour of Page | 7 the assessee. Operative part of the judgment in case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is reproduced below:- "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing oj 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? (2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Sec tion 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) is had in law and. invalid inspite the amendment of Sec tion 27 1 (1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under S ec tion 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income? 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with S ec tion 271 (l)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Sec tion 27 1(l)(c ) of the Act, the Page | 8 penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. .The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied 01 the derision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered In the case of COMMISSIONER or INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed." 8. Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 27I(l)(c) apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(l)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed "particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 9. The penalty provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that Page | 9 the aforesaid two limbs of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike- off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Kar) observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clauses would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) has also noticed that where the Assessing Officer issues notice under section 274 of the Act in the standard proforma and the inappropriate words are not deleted, the same would postulate that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to whether he was to proceed on the basis that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in such a situation, levy of penalty suffers from non-application of mind. In the background of the aforesaid legal position and, having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act Page | 10 dated 23.12.2016 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show anon-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable. 10. The facts of the present appeal are identical to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's. Emarld Meadows (supra). In the instant case the AO in the notice issue u/s 274 read with section 271(l)(c ) of the Act has not specified as to whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed his income. Hence, respectfully following the quoted decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we cancel the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.06.2017 levying penalty of Rs.3,63,590/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 11. I find the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited in ITA No.475/2019 order dated 02.08.2019 has observed as under :- "21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1) (c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Page | 11 Tax v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) , the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. " 12. Respectfully following the decisions cited above I am of the considered opinion that levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is bad in law since the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act the penalty proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is cancelled. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2019. Sd/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Neha* Date:- 07.10.2019 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page | 12 Date of dictation 29.08.2019 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating 02.09.2018 Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 07.10.2019 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating 07.10.2019 Member for Pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 07.10.2019 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of 07.10.2019 ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 07.10.2019 Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order Page | 13
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Experience

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions