Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Smt. Baisetty Revathi Propx: M/s. Srinivasa Homes Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 (1) Visakhapatnam

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of interest on borrowed capital - Held that:- When the Assessing Officer himself was not sure whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is invalid.

Addition on account of proportionate disallowance of interest on borrowed capital is concerned, in our view such addition does not call for imposition of penalty unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

whatever may be the reason, but it is a fact on record that assessee’s claim that an amount of ₹ 1.20 crores was utilized for purchase of land has not been controverted by the Department. In fact, the learned CIT (A) while considering the validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on similar disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 deleted the penalty by observing that the disallowance of proportionate interest on borrowed fu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.599/Vizag/2014 - Dated:- 5-3-2015 - Normal 0 false false f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

:val= before />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Locked= false Priority= 9 QFormat= true Name= heading 6 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ception Locked= false Priority= 1 Name= Default Paragraph Font />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me= Light Grid />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

false Priority= 72 SemiHidden= false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Colorful List />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en= false UnhideWhenUsed= false QFormat= true Name= List Paragraph />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eption Locked= false Priority= 72 SemiHidden= false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Colorful List Accent 1 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Medium List 2 Accent 2 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Light List Accent 3 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed= false Priority= 70 SemiHidden= false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Dark List Accent 3 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 Accent 4 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

WhenUsed= false Name= Colorful Grid Accent 4 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iority= 68 SemiHidden= false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Medium Grid 2 Accent 5 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sdException Locked= false Priority= 63 SemiHidden= false UnhideWhenUsed= false Name= Medium Shading 1 Accent 6 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Name= Colorful Shading Accent 6 />

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e= TOC Heading /> SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri I. Kama Sastry, CA For the Respondent : Shri D. Manoj Kumar, DR ORDER Per Saktijit Dey. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17.09.2014 of learned CIT (A) Visakhapatnam confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2010-11. 2. Briefly the facts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring assessment proceedings for assessment year 2006-07, wherein the property was actually constructed, it was found by the Assessing Officer that assessee had utilized ₹ 7,21,14,405 for construction purposes as against borrowed funds of ₹ 10.50 crores availed from Punjab National Bank. Assessing Officer while conducting the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2006-07 was of the view, as entire borrowed fund was not utilized for construction purposes, interest on such borrowed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lated proportionate interest on borrowed fund which was not utilized for the purpose of construction and made a disallowance of ₹ 54,74,678 out of the total amount of interest claimed of ₹ 1,69,62,265. Further, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there was a cash deposit of ₹ 15,60,000 in the assessee s bank account on 31.03.2010. As the assessee could not furnish any credible evidence to explain the source of such deposits, Assessing Officer treated the same as unexpl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n stating therein that the disallowance with regard to interests on borrowed capital is on agreed basis with an assurance that no penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) would be initiated. As far as unexplained cash deposits into the bank accounts are concerned it was submitted that though the assessee was not in a position to establish with strict proof of evidence but there is no possibility to establish concealment she had accepted the additions as she was not able to furnish strict proo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nical issues as well as on merits. However, submissions made by assessee did not find favour with the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the penalty by holding as under: 5. I have considered the submissions made. With regard to the contention raised by the AR that the penalty notice was not issued and not served on the assessee, a letter was issued to the Assessing Officer to verify the records and report on the contention raised in this regard. The A.R vide letter dated 9.9.2014 reported that the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in sec 271(1B) of the I.T. Act, the direction, penalty proceedings will be initiated separately would amount to recording of satisfaction requisite under the Act. Further, the Hon'ble sc in the case of MAK DATA PVT Ltd vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (S.C) has observed, the AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce into writing . .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the CIT (A) has deleted the penalty in the assessee s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 & A.Y 2008-09 which involved similar issues and accordingly the impugned penalty should be deleted. It is relevant to note that the disallowance of proportionate interest was made from assessment year 2006-07 onwards and which has been admitted by the assessee. But the assessee still chose to claim higher claim of deduction for A.Y 2010-11 also which only go to prove that the assessee had deliberately .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

laim was made bonafide. The particulars relating to the credit have been detected by the Department during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, I find that the Assessing Officer is justified in holding that the assessee is exigible for penalty for not disclosing these transactions. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that Assessing Officer is justified in levying the impugned penalty. Accordingly the same is upheld . 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, even in the penalty order itself Assessing Officer was not sure whether penalty is imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this context he drew our attention to the finding of the Assessing Officer in the penalty order. The learned Authorised Representative submitted even otherwise also the disall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Authorised Representative that a part of the borrowed fund to be precise, an amount of ₹ 1,20,24,000 was utilized for purchase of land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire borrowed fund was not utilized for the construction. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us that considering the aforesaid facts, CIT (A) in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 has deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on account of addition made on disallowance of interest on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the other hand submitted before us, from the assessment order it is evident that in the earlier assessment years, interest on borrowed capital has been proportionately disallowed as the entire borrowed fund was not utilized for construction purpose to which assessee also agreed. However, assessee in the impugned assessment year has again claimed the entire interest on borrowed fund without making proportionate disallowance. Further, learned Departmental Representative submitted, assessee has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with the provisions of section 271(1B), assessee s claim cannot be accepted. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, as the facts on record clearly prove furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee, provisions of section 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the orders of the Revenue authorities. We have also applied our mind to the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce in assessment year 2009-10 as also agreed for similar disallowance in assessment year 2006-07, but has not disallowed proportionate interests in the assessment year under consideration. Further, Assessing Officer has also made addition of ₹ 15,60,000 under section 68 of the Act as assessee could not explain the source of such investment with supporting evidence. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case, in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1(1)(c) is to be initiated. In aforesaid view of the matter this contention of the assessee is rejected. However, as can be seen in the show cause notice issued under section 271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not specified whether penalty proposed to be imposed under section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed the order. However, if the existence of the conditions could not be discerned from the said order and if it is a case of relying on deeming provision contained in Explanation-1 or in Explanation-1(B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentoned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as the section 274 makes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) when it is a sine qua non for initiation or proceedings, the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds and the said grounds have to be specifically stated so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. After, he places his version and tries to substantiate his claim, if at all, penalty is to be imposed, it should be imposed only on the grounds on which he is called upon to answer. It is not open to the authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable. 61. The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9 has held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb bein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

curate particulars of income no penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c) as the notice issued is defective. The Hon ble High Court held that in absence of clarity in the show cause notice, the assessee could not be expected to furnish his explanation in an effective manner. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court (supra) clearly apply to the facts of the present case. On a perusal of the show cause notice issued under section 271 read with section 274, it is manifest Assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns made by the Assessing Officer is extracted hereunder: In view of the foregoing, the submission/ explanation furnished by the assessee is held as untenable and accordingly I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income as envisaged under section 271(1)(c) and as such invites levy of penalty . 10. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jyoti Ltd (34 taxmann.com 65)(Guj.) while considering a case of imposition of penalty under section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t come to a clear finding regarding penalty being imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 11. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer himself was not sure whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is invalid. Therefore, for these reasons alone, by applying the decisions of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version