9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . The show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) does not strike out the inappropriate words .Imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pricing adjustments. 8. That the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law by challenging the aggregation of the engineering division transactions with other transactions and holding that such transactions are not at arm's length. 4. Ground Nos.1 and 3 : In support of these grounds (supra) raised before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to follow the binding decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and since the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 09.04.2013 for initiating proceedings for imposing penalty was not in accordance with law, on this ground alone, the order imposing penalty should be quashed. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the show cause notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings dated 09.04.2013 (placed at page 47 of Paper Book) and submitted that the said notice does not specify as to whether the assessee is guilty of having "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or of having "concealed particulars of such income". He pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be applied in the context of show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP Vs. ACIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 93(SC) was rendered in the context of Section148 of the Act wherein the name of the erstwhile company which got converted into an LLP was mentioned. The defect was held to be curable and falling within the mischief of Section292B of the Act. This decision rendered in the context of Section 148, of the Act in our view is not relevant in the present case. The same reasoning would apply to the decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Jayson Infrastructure India Ltd. (supra). 7. The learned DR relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51. In this case the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. This decision is also contrary to the decision of Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt, the facts of some cases may attract both the offences and in some cases there may be overlapping of the two offences but in such cases the initiation of the penalty proceedings also must be for both the offences. But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty for either the one or the other cannot be sustained in law. It is needless to point out satisfaction of the existence of the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind.' 9. The final conclusion of the Hon'ble Court was as follows:- "63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. t) The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty though emanate from proceedings of assessment. it is independent and separate aspect of the proceedings. u) The findings recorded in the assessment proceedings in so far as "concealment of income" and "furnishing of incorrect particulars" would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However, the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied, cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings." (emphasis supplied) 10. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that, on the facts of the case on hand, evidently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
