Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Jupitor Distillery, Surat vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 October, 2011
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ûयायपीठ 'बी', अहमदाबाद
सव[ौी ौी भवनेश सैनी,
ी, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं ौी ए.
ए.मोहन अलंकामोनी,
ामोनी लेखा सदःय के सम¢
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 'B' BENCH : AHMEDABAD
Before Hon'ble Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Hon'ble Shri A.Mohan Alankamony, A.M.)
आयकर अपील सं. ITA No. 1555/Ahd./2009 : िनधा[रण वष[ः- 2005-2006
The A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4, Surat -Vs- Jupiter Distillery, Daman
(PAN : AACFJ 0179R)
(अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) (ू×यथȸ/Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Sr.D.R.
ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से / Respondent By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R.
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 03/10/2011
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 16/12/2011
आदे श / Order
Per Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.CIT(A)-II/CC.4/1/2008-09 dated 03.02.2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 passed under section 250 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961.
2. Though the Revenue has, raised five grounds, the prime grievance of it being -
"that the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.49.07 lakhs by ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4(a) below s.271 (1) (c) of the Act."
3. Briefly stated, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of liquors. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were carried out at the residential premises of the partners and, simultaneously, survey action u/s 133A was undertaken at the business premises of the assessee. The assessee had taken the entire liability of the undisclosed transactions towards undisclosed income, investments and expenditure and accordingly, admitted of unaccounted income of Rs.3.2 crores. In compliance with the issuance of notice u/s 153C of the Act, the ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 assessee furnished a return of income admitting NIL income. Brushing aside the various contentions put-forth by the assessee and for the reasons recorded therein, the ld. AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act, determining the total taxable income at Rs. Nil on account of accumulated losses and depreciation claims. However, he made an addition of Rs.89.98 lakhs pertaining to income on account of unaccounted production, sale and suppression of profit.
3.1. It was the case of the Revenue that survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and during the survey operations, several documents including digital documents maintained on the main computer server were unearthed and impounded. Those computerized documents revealed and evidenced parallel business run by the appellant for which an alternate set of digital accounts were maintained. On the deposition of the computer operator of the appellant during the course of survey proceedings, it was noticed that the records of unaccounted sales and purchases have been maintained on the computer server in FACT account software - under the document name 'sample file 2003-2005' and 'sample 2005-06 file', that the regular books of accounts separately maintained on the computer showed only the accounted portion of business which had been produced before the authorities, while a digital document module, 'sample file' as mentioned above embodied total accounts, both of regular accounted business (No.1) and unaccounted business (No.2). The 'sample file' maintained on FACT software and extracted from the back-up of the impounded HDD comprise of daily sales and purchases effected for the relevant AY. Thus, according to the Revenue, the basis for addition and the penal proceedings has been detection of out-of-books production and un-recorded sales as per impounded digital document and consequent concealment of income determined during the assessment proceedings.
3.2. On the basis of unearthing of the concealment of income, the assessee was issued a notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act requiring to show-cause as to why it should not be penalized for having concealed the particulars of its income and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. After duly analyzing the lengthy submission of the assessee and also extensively quoting the findings of the 2 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 Hon'ble earlier Bench in the case of DCIT v. Smt. Jayshree M Pethani [IT (SS)A No.169/Ahd/2002 which had laid down tests for determining the culpability and levy of penalty and also relying on various judicial pronouncements on a similar issue as recorded in the impugned order under challenge, the AO had observed thus -
"(On page 14) Thus, the following points emerge as regards to the penalty proceedings:
1. The assessee has failed to give any justification or acceptable explanation for reporting of lower than actual income as per the impounded digital files named as 'sample files';
2. The assessee has willfully furnished return of lower income in order to evade taxes by established under-reporting of income by way of suppression of revenue;
3. The ratio and tests laid down for levy of penalty as in the cases of National Textiles v. CIT 249 ITR 125 of jurisdictional High Court and DCIT v. Smt Jayshree M Pethani IT(SS)A No.169/Ahd/2002 of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad are clearly applicable to the case of the assessee;
4. in the penalty proceedings, the assessee has failed to advance any evidence in support of its claims and contentions and all the arguments of the assessee have been found to be of no consequence. The element of animus is blatant in assessee's evasive and baseless replies.
Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of s.271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of s.271(1)(c) and on the facts of the case, satisfied that the assessee is at fault in regards to the provisions of s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961, I hold that it is a fit case for levy of penalty of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Since, the instant case pertains to reduction in loss on account of concealment of income, as per Explanation 4(a) to section 271, the amount of tax sought to be evaded in such case where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return, means that the tax that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of 3 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 which particulars have been concealed, had such income been the total income.
Accordingly, in this case the minimum penalty at the ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the merits of explanation of the assessee, I proceed to impose penalty of Rs.49,07,766/- being 100% of the tax leviable in respect of the excess over return undisclosed income determined under clause (c) of s.sec. 271(1) r.w. Explanation 4(a) thereof. Hence, accordingly, the assessee is directed to pay, by way of penalty, a sum of Rs.49,07,766/-................."
4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) for relief. During the course of appellate proceedings (penalty), it was valiantly argued that -
"3....that penalty cannot be levied on addition of Rs.89,40,079/- u/s 40A(3) made by disallowing 20% of cash expenditure. All the expenditure are genuine and incurred for earning the income. Since the sales and purchase was outside books, it was incurred in cash but the fact is that the expenditure is incurred and disallowance does not call for imposition of penalty for concealment. For addition of Rs.89,98,810/- being profit out of book it was submitted that the assessee has already surrendered amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- at the time of survey and in statement recorded and also officered (sic) offered it in return of income. When he has offered it as income, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on this amount is not justified. Further, it was submitted that the AO while making the assessment has taken sale of country liquor from regular book and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from unaccounted book which is not proper. Both the figures should be taken from the unaccounted books and if this is taken, there will be no difference in returned and assessed income and addition will not be there. Further, it was submitted that even if the addition is sustained in appellate proceedings, the penalty is not justified as the assessment and penalty proceedings are different. He has already surrendered suppressed income in 4 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 the statement made and offered the income. Therefore, it was submitted that the penalty should be deleted."
4.1. After due consideration of the facts and submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) observed thus -
"4............I agree with the appellant's view. Penalty cannot be levied on addition of Rs.89,40,079/- u/s 40A(3) made by disallowing 20% of cash expenditure. All the expenditure are genuine and incurred for earning the income and disallowance does not call for imposition of penalty for concealment.
For addition of Rs.89,98,810/- being profit out of books, the assessee has already surrendered amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- at the time of survey/statement recorded and also offered it in return of income. When he has offered it as income, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on this amount is not justified."
5. Agitated, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal before this Bench. It was strongly argued by the ld. D.R. that the ld. CIT (A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty without considering the facts that the assessee had failed to explain the out-of books production and unrecorded sales as per impounded 'sample file' during the course of survey at the premises of the assessee. The ld. D.R. further submitted that he further erred in law in deleting the penalty imposed by ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4(a) below s.271(1)(c) and also without recording any finding that the explanation of the assessee for not disclosing the income was bona fide; and also erred in canceling the penalty in complete disregard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [306 ITR 277 (SC)] whereby the penalty was held to be a civil liability as a remedy for loss of revenue and mens rea was not considered an essential ingredient of s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
5.1. To strengthen his assertion, the ld. D R had placed reliance on the following case laws, namely:
(i) LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd v. DCIT (2011) 330 ITR 93 (Guj);
(ii) ACIT v. Kirit Dhyabhai Patel (2009) 121 ITD 159 - ITAT, AHD 'B' Third Member Bench; &
(iii) Shyam Behari v. ACIT - ITAT Delhi 'G' Bench - (2011) 43 SOT 129 (Del) 5 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 5.2. On the other hand, the ld. AR came up with emphatic reiteration of more or less what was portrayed before the first appellate authority. In furtherance, it was contended that the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not at all justifiable as the income disclosed during the course of survey proceedings was included in the return of income furnished on 31.10.2005 and, hence, it was urged, no concealment in the return filed by the appellant. It was, further, submitted that the penalty proceedings for the AYS 2004-05 and 2006-07 were dropped on identical facts, and, thus, the stand of the AO to levy of penalty for the impugned assessment year under dispute was not at all justified. Further, the ld. AR sought refuge under clause 2 of Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act since, according to the ld. A.R., the disclosure was made during the course of search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the Act.
Before parting with his arguments, the ld. A R had placed strong reliance on the following case laws:
(i) DCIT v. Dr Satish B Gupta (2011) 135 TTJ (Ahd) 611;
(ii) Sadbhav Builders v. ITO - ITA NO.1418/Ahd/2008 dt. 21.1.2011; &
(iii) CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals - ITA No.1058 of 2009 dt.8.4.2011 of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court.
6. We have duly considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available from the records. At the outset, it is observed that the documentary evidences adduced by the ld. A.R during the course of hearing in the shape of a voluminous paper book running into 1 - 330 pages and also various case laws on which the respective parties have placed their unstinted confidence.
6.1. It was the case of the Revenue that the assessee had grossly failed to (at the cost of repetition) -
(i) give any justification or acceptable explanation for reporting of lower than actual income as per the impounded digital files named as 'sample files';
(ii) The assessee has willfully furnished return of lower income in order to evade taxes by established under-reporting of income by way of suppression of revenue;
6ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09
(iii) The ratio and tests laid down for levy of penalty as in the cases of National Textiles v. CIT 249 ITR 125 of jurisdictional High Court and DCIT v. Smt Jayshree M Pethani IT(SS)A No.169/Ahd/2002 of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad are clearly applicable to the case of the assessee; &
(iv) in the penalty proceedings, the assessee has failed to advance any evidence in support of its claims and contentions and all the arguments of the assessee have been found to be of no consequence. The element of animus is blatant in assessee's evasive and baseless replies.
6.2. To counter the Revenue's allegations, the assessee had come up with the submission that the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not at all justifiable as the income disclosed during the course of survey proceedings was included in the return of income furnished and, hence, no concealment in the return filed by the assessee. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the penalty proceedings for the AYS 04- 05 and 06-07 were dropped on identical facts, and, thus, the stand of the AO to levy of penalty for the AY under dispute was not justified and that the appellant sought refuge under clause 2 of Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act since the disclosure was made during the course of search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the Act.
6.3. Let us now analyze the legal position on the issue:
Case laws relied on by the Revenue:
(i) LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd., v. DCIT (2011) 330 ITR 93 (Guj):
The issue before the Hon'ble Court was, briefly, that the statement of the Chairman and M.D. of the assessee company was recorded as certain purchases made by it did not appear to be genuine. It was only thereafter, the assessee filed a declaration u/s 273A disclosing additional income of Rs.54.71 lakhs as being relatable to the AY 85- 86 which was followed by revised returns for all the three relevant AYs declaring identical additional income of Rs.18 lakhs each and that before the assessments could be finalized, the assessee came up with another application declaring additional income of Rs.78.56 lakhs with a contention that while disclosing the said Rs.78.56 lakhs, it had withdrawn the declaration of Rs.18 lakhs each for the other two years was not supported by any evidence on record. The assessee had at no stage made a 7 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 categorical assertion that the amount of Rs.18 lakhs each was not concealed income of the assessee for the AYs 86-87 and 87-88, but it was only stated that the disclosure of Rs.18 lasks each in the subsequent years was required to be deleted on account of additional disclosure in the AY 85-86. Considering the assessee's contention, the Hon'ble Court held that this cannot be equated with withdrawal or retraction of the disclosure made by the assessee and that it cannot be accepted that the revised returns for all the three years were filed voluntarily in good faith and the fact that the assessee has not challenged any of the assessment orders for the relevant AYs, in conjunction with the overall conduct of the assessee is a definite pointer to the conclusion that the assessee indulged in the act of concealment of income and therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was justified.
6.4 We have perused the above ruling of the Hon'ble Court and it is observed that the issue before the Hon'ble Court was on the different footing to that of the issue under consideration and, therefore, the case laws relied on by the Revenue cannot come to its rescue.
(ii) ACIT v. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (2009) 125 TTJ (AHD) (TM)145 :
The issue in that assessee was that a search took place on 4.9.2003 and in respect of the earlier year (AY 2002-03) had ended and the return was filed by the assessee after the search in response to notice issued u/s 153A on 31.5.2004. it was finding of the Hon'ble Bench that additional income declared in the return did not fall under the category of the return mentioned in Expln. 5(2) to s. 271(1)(c) and, thus, the assessee was not entitled to the immunity from penalty.
6.5 With much regards, we would like to reiterate that the Revenue cannot take shelter in the above cited findings of the Hon'ble Bench since the issue on hand, the assessee had furnished its return of income on 31.10.2005, on the basis of materials available wherein it had added additional income of Rs.1.60 crores in its computation of income. It is pertinent to mention here that the ld. AO in his assessment order had unwittingly mentioned that a Notice u/s 153C of the Act was served on the assessee on 27.4.2006, whereas a return of income declaring a total income of Nil was filed on 23.3.2006.8
ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09
(iii) Shyam Behari v. ACIT (2011) 43 SOT 129 (Del):
6.6 In this case, during the course of search, it was found that the assessee was keeping two sets of books and documentary evidence was found exhibiting the involvement of assessee in selling the goods out of books and recording expenditure.
The AO made the addition by estimating the profit at 10 per cent on unrecorded sales which was reduced to 4 percent by the CIT (A) and 3 per cent by the Tribunal. The penalty levied on addition was confirmed by the CIT (A). It was held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the assessee was maintaining two sets of books and addition had been made on the basis of the documentary evidence which had been confirmed upto the Tribunal. It is not the case of simplicitor estimation of the income by disbelieving the books of account or other details submitted by an assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The Department was able to lay its hands on the documentary evidence exhibiting the conduct of the assessee for avoiding tax and carrying out the business activity out of the regular books.
6.7 In this regard, we like to point out that in the case of the above mentioned assessee, estimation of addition was made on the basis of books of account whereas in the present assessee, its books of accounts were rejected u/s 145 of the Act, and thus, in our view, the case law referred by the Revenue has no relevance.
Case laws relied on by the Assessee:
(i) M/s. Sadhbhav Builders v. ITO - ITA No.1418/Ahd/2008 (AY 2002-03):
The issue, in brief, was that the assessee filed its return of income admitting an income of Rs.69,880/-, however, the Ld. AO concluded the assessment on a total income of Rs.14.88 lakhs after disallowing various expenses that certain defects in the vouchers and increase in expenses disproportionate to the turnover. Suo motto action, the Ld. CIT directed the AO u/s 263 of the Act to make a separate addition of Rs.8 lakhs which was disclosed by the assessee as undisclosed income during the course of survey. The Tribunal in the quantum appeal observed that the rejection of books of account of the assessee was proper and, therefore, direct the AO to compute the total income of the assessee at 5% of its turnover and also to separately add thereafter Rs.8 lakhs which was disclosed by the assessee during survey operation. It was contended 9 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 by the assessee during the course of penal proceedings before the Tribunal that the income of Rs.8 lakhs detected during survey operation was duly disclosed as separate income in its ROI and, further, the Tribunal estimated the income of the assessee at Rs.2.07 lakhs in place of loss of Rs.7.3 lakhs due to rejection of books of account on estimate basis only and, therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justifiable.
After hearing the Departmental Representative, the Hon'ble Bench has recorded its findings, thus -
"5. We find that it is not in dispute that income of Rs.8 lacs was disclosed by the assessee during the course of survey on 25.7.2002 and it is also not in dispute that the assessee for the first time filed its return of income for the AY under consideration on 29.11.2002 where this income was duly disclosed therein.
Under s. 271(1)(c) the concealment of income is to be inferred from the return of income and not merely an attempt to make concealment. If the assessee rectifies itself and declares the correct income in the valid return of income and does not file any return by concealing the income then such act is not punishable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no penalty can be levied in respect of income of Rs.8 lacs which was duly disclosed by the assessee in its valid return of income.
6. Further, we find that the remaining amount of assessed income was determined on the basis of estimation of the income because of rejection of books of account. No positive material was brought on record by the Revenue to show that any bogus or non-genuine expenditure was claimed by the assessee in the return of income............................ We do not find any force in the contention of the Learned Departmental Representative that as ultimately assessed income is almost 16 times of the returned income, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should be levied. In our considered opinion, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only when it is found that the assessee has actually concealed particulars of income in the return of income filed by it or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income and the same has no relevance with the quantum of assessed income as a number of times of the returned income. It is settled poison of law that the consideration which applies in a penalty proceedings is different from the consideration which applies in an assessment proceedings. Merely inability of the assessee to substantiate its return of income and, therefore, estimation of income does not necessarily mean either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income by the assessee. There is difference between 'unproved' and 'disproved'. Thus, it is observed that no material could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that the assessee has either concealed any particulars of income in the return of income or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income in the 10 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 return of income filed by it. We, therefore, delete the penalty of Rs.4,58,240/- levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act......."
6.8 We are in total agreement with the findings of the Hon'ble Bench cited supra. As the issue before us is almost similar to that of the issue dealt with by the Hon'ble Bench, we are of the considered view that the said findings are directly applicable to the facts of the issue on hand. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee's premises were subjected to search and seizure and survey on 21st and 22nd of July, 2005 and the partners of the assessee filed their declaration letter dt.25.8.2005 before the Addl. DIT Inv), Surat with the following income for tax:
F.Y. 2004-05 (Asst. year 2005-06) Rs.1,60,00,000/-
[Source: Pages 1 and 2 of P.B - A.R.]
Simultaneously, the assessee in its communications dated 20.8.2005 and again on 21.9.2005 addressed to the Addl./Asst. DIT (Inv), Surat [courtesy: Pages 5 & 7 of PB AR] with a request to provide the copy of Hard Disc which would facilitate it to prepare its return of income, but of no avail. However, in its computation of income as well as in Form 3CB had shown Rs.1,60 crores as additional income surrendered. However, it appears that the impounded records have not been returned or furnished copies thereof by the Revenue to facilitate the appellant to finalize its accounts and to sketch its computation of income. It may not also be out of place to mention here that the Ld. AO in his assessment order had mentioned that a Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 27.4.2006 which was served upon the assessee on 27.4.2006. However, on the same breath, he had stated that in response to notice issued u/s 153C of the Act, return of income declaring total income of Rs.Nil was filed on 23.3.2006. If the ld. A.O's assertion were to be taken on its face value, then the assessee on its own, rather voluntarily, furnished its return of income before the issuance of the Notice u/s 153C of the Act wherein it had volunteered to admit an additional income of Rs.1.60 crores.
(ii) CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals - ITA No.1058 of 2009 - Delhi High Court:
Briefly, the assessee's business premises were subjected to survey operation and during the survey discrepancies in cash, stock and difference in the cost of renovation were unearthed. When confronted, the assessee had surrendered the amount of 11 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 Rs.88.14 lakhs during the survey and while furnishing its return of income, declared its income at Rs.87.71 lakhs which included the surrendered sum. While framing the assessment, the Ld. AO also initiated penal proceedings with reasoning that the assessee had concealed its income and, subsequently penalized for Rs.32.39 lakhs for concealment of its income. On appeal, penalty imposed was cancelled on the premise that there was no concealment of income as the same was reflected in its return. The Tribunal had also upheld the finding of the CIT(A). Frustrated, the Revenue took up the issue with the Hon'ble Court for redress. While furnishing its return, the assessee had accepted the difference unearthed during survey and no attempt was made by it even after to surrender to retract there-from or to explain that there were no such discrepancies. In this context, a question had arisen as to whether the assessee can be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when it had shown its income in its return and contended that it had voluntarily declared the same in its regular return. After analyzing the (i) provisions of the relevant section (ii) the contention of the Revenue that the intention of the assessee in maintaining false records relating to cash, stock and renovation etc., was manifest i.e., to conceal the particulars of its income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income (iii) the assessee's contention that Clause (c) of s.271(1) of the Act makes it clear the act of 'concealment' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' is relatable only in respect of a return being filed and as such in a case where the stage of filing of return itself had not been reached, there was no question of invocation of penal provision of s.271 of the Act etc., To substantiate his claim, the assessee's A.R. took refuge of Expln 5 and Expn 5A of s.271 of the Act and also the ruling of the Apex Court in CIT Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). After consideration of the respective submissions, the Hon'ble Court observed thus -
"12.............we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee has to prevail as it carried substantial weight. It is to be kept in mind that section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Sub-section (1) of s.271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO or the CIT (A) may direct payment of penalty by the assessee. We are concerned herewith the fundamentality provided in Clause (c) of s.271(1) of the Act which authorizes imposition of penalty when the AO is satisfied that the assessee has either:12
ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09
(a) concealed the particulars of his income; or
(b) furnished inaccurate particulars of such income
13. it is not the case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as in the income-tax return, particulars of income have been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the income-tax return. The question is whether the particulars of income were concealed by the assessee or not. It would depend upon the issue as to whether this concealment has reference to the income-tax return filed by the assessee, viz., whether concealment is to be found in the income-tax return.
14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue relying upon the expression 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' occurring in sub-section (1) of s.271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the assessee had concealed the particular of his income, it would amount to concealment in the course of 'any proceedings'. The words 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' are prefaced by the satisfaction of the AO or the CIT (A). When the survey is conducted by a survey team, the question of satisfaction of AO or the CIT (A) or the CIT does not arise. We have to keep in mind that it is the AO who initiated the penalty proceedings and directed the payment of penalty. He had not recorded any satisfaction during the course of survey. Decision to initiate penalty proceedings was taken while making assessment order. It is, thus, obvious that the expression 'in the course of any proceedings under this Act' cannot have the reference to survey proceedings, in this case.
15. It necessarily follows that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by the assessee has to be in the income-tax return filed by it. There is sufficient indication of this in the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT, Delhi I v. Mohan Das Hassa Nand 141 ITR 203 and in Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has clinched this aspect, viz., the assessee can furnish the particulars of income in his return and everything would depend upon the income-tax return filed by the assessee. This view gets supported by Explanation 4 as well as 5 and 5A of s.271 of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent.
16. No doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee.
Presently, we are not concerned with the assessment of income, but the moot question is to whether this would attract penalty upon the assessee under the provisions of s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Obviously, no penalty can be imposed unless the conditions stipulated in the said provisions are duly and unambiguously satisfied. Since the assessee was exposed during survey, may be, it would have not disclosed the income but for the said survey. However, there cannot be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and possibilities. Section 271(1)(c) of the 13 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the income-tax return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax."
6.9 We fully endorse the ruling of the Hon'ble Court. In the present case also, the assessee had surrendered a whopping sum of Rs.1.6 crores during the course of survey/search and seizure operation. While furnishing its return of income, the appellant had declared its income including the amount so surrendered. However, while framing the assessment order, the Ld. AO initiated penal proceedings on the premise that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by suppressing and under-reporting the investment in bank accounts and on account of income deemed to have accrued to it.
6.10. Taking into account the submissions of the ld. A.R, the ld. D R and also the judicial pronouncements on a similar issue and in conformity with the findings of the Hon'ble Bench in the case of M/s. Sadhbhav Builders v. ITO and the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited supra, we are of the unanimous view that penal proceedings initiated and subsequent imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present appellant's case are not in accordance with the provisions of S. 271 (1)(c) as envisaged in the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
7. Before parting with, we would like to clarify that the appellant in its grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority agitated in Ground No. 3 was that -
"3. The Ld. ACIT erred on the facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice, failed to appreciate the fact that the concealed income on account of unaccounted production and sale and suppression of profit was only Rs.89,98,810/- and not Rs.1,63,59,219/- (Rs.89,98,810/- + Rs.73,60,409/-) 7.1. However, while adjudicating the issue, the Ld. CIT (A) had harped on the issue of addition of Rs.89,40,079/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act by disallowing 20% of cost expenditure etc., To be precise, this issue has no relevance and rather nothing to do 14 ITA No. 1555-Ahd-09 with the penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT (A) dealt with a non-issue and also adjudicated the same with the observations that -
"4. I have considered the facts and submissions. I agree with the appellant's view. Penalty cannot be levied on addition of Rs.89,40,079/- u/s 40A (3) made by disallowing 20% of cash expenditure. All the expenditure are genuine and incurred for earning the income and disallowance does not call for imposition of penal concealment."
Thus, the ld. CIT (A) had adjudicated an issue which was neither raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal nor the ld. AO initiated penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of Rs.89,40,079/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In effect, the main issue of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been effectively side-tracked.
8. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
इस आदे श कȧ घोषणा Ǒदनांकः 16/12/2011 को Ûयायालय मɅ कȧ गई ।
This Order pronounced in Court on 16/12/2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bhavnesh Saini) (A.Mohan Alankamony)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
DATED : 16/12/2011
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषतः-
षतः-
1. अपीलाथȸ
2. ू×यथȸ
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ
4. आयकर आयुƠ- अपील-
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
6. गाड[ फाइल
आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद।
Talukdar/ Sr. P.S.
15