Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow
Akhilesh Gupta, Kanpur vs Acit-Ii, Kanpur on 31 May, 2018
I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017
1
Assessment Year:2006-07
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.460/Lkw/2017
Assessment year:2006-07
Shri Satish Chandra Gupta, Vs. A.C.IT.-II,
L/h Kanti Devi Gupta, Kanpur.
69/156, Dana Khori,
Kanpur.
PAN:ADJPG 0585 E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.461/Lkw/2017
Assessment year:2006-07
Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Vs. A.C.IT.-II,
4/7, Navsheel Apartment, Kanpur.
Cantt. Kanpur.
PAN:AEPPG 6758D B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.462/Lkw/2017
Assessment year:2006-07
Shri Shailesh Gupta, Vs. A.C.IT.-II,
69/156, Dana Khori, Kanpur.
Kanpur.
PAN:AEPPG 3810 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate
Respondent by Smt. Alka Singh, D.R.
Date of hearing 29/05/2018
Date of pronouncement 31/05/2018
ORDER
PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M.
These three appeals have been filed by three different assessees against the separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur all dated 26/05/2017.
I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 2 Assessment Year:2006-07
2. In all these appeals, the grievance of the assessees is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
3. These appeals were heard together and the facts being common and issue similar, therefore, they are being disposed of in this consolidated order.
4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to the paper book filed before us wherein show cause notices for penalty under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of all the assessees were placed. It was submitted that from a perusal of these notices, it is crystal clear that the charge is not specific for which penalty is levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently argued that it is settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
5. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.
8. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions and as apparent from notices under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that the charge on which penalty is levied is not specific. The copy of show cause notices have been made part of this order, which is as under:
I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 3 Assessment Year:2006-07 I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 4 Assessment Year:2006-07 I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 5 Assessment Year:2006-07 I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 6 Assessment Year:2006-07 From a perusal of these notices, it is crystal clear that the charge is not specific for which penalty is levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently argued that it is settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
9. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.
10. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions and as apparent from notices under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for all the assessment years, we find that the charge on which penalty is levied is not specific. The law mandates that the authority who is proposing to impose penalty shall be certain as to what basis penalty is being levied and notice must reflect that specific reason so that assessee to whom such notice is given can well prepare himself regarding defence which he likes to take to support his case. This is even enshrined in the principles of natural justice and as has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. We would like to rely on the following cases:-
(1) CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court looked into the facts before them that Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 7 Assessment Year:2006-07 i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the matter travelled upto the High Court, it supported the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) and decided that there was therefore no substantial question of law to be decided. Thereafter an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue finding no merit therein and confirming the issue in favour of the assessee.
(2) CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (karn.). In this case, it has been clearly mentioned and held by the Hon'ble High Court that notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in 271(1)(c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. Assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings though it emanates from the assessment proceedings still it is separate and independent proceedings all together.
(3) Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITA NO. 2555/MUM/2012, order dated 28/04/2017 wherein the observation of the Bench was that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are "quasi-criminal" proceedings and ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. The non-striking of the irrelevant portion in the show-cause notice means that the Assessing Officer is not firm about the charge against the assessee and the assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of s. 271(1)(c) he has to respond.
(1) Chandra Prakash Bubna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(3), Kolkata (ITAT Kolkata Bench) [2015] 64 taxmann.com 155 wherein it was held that when the Assessing Officer levied penalty without bringing out any specific charge for which penalty had been imposed, penalty was liable to be deleted.
I.T.A. Nos.460 to 462/Lkw/2017 8 Assessment Year:2006-07
11. The settled legal position on the issue as enshrined in the aforesaid cases is apparent and we arrive at the considered view that notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act which has not specified the charge and limb under which penalty should be levied, it is void ab initio and any consequent penalty imposed on the basis of such notice is, therefore, illegal and bad in law and liable to be deleted. We, therefore, direct deletion of penalty in all these three appeals.
12. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/05/2018.
Sd/. Sd/.
(PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR )
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:31/05/2018
*Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. Concerned CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow