IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour Private Limited - Respondent.
Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Income Tax Act, 1961– Section 271(1)(c), 132, 143(2), 153A – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Instant application is directed against order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘Ranchi E-Court’ Bench at Kolkata in Appeal being I.T.(S.S.) , for A.Y. preferred by Appellant-Department; whereby learned ITAT has dismissed appeal of revenue and sustained order of CIT Appeal who has dismissed order of penalty passed by Assessing Officer – Held, Argument of learned counsel for revenue does not stand in eye of law because penalty proceeding was initiated pursuant to a search conducted i.e., after amendment made in Act; as such whether incriminating document was found or not is immaterial because law mandates that penalty if any should have been taken under section of Act where search has been initiated on or after first day – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant application is directed against the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ‘Ranchi E-Court’ Bench at Kolkata (hereinafter to be referred as “ITAT”) in Appeal being I.T.(S.S.) A No. 11/Ran/2020, for the A.Y. 2014-2015 preferred by the Appellant-Department; whereby the learned ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the revenue and sustained the order of CIT Appeal who has dismissed the order of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer.
3. The brief fact of the case is that search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was carried out on 03.09.2014 at the business and residential premises of Jagdamba Group and the respondent is one of the members of the said group. During the course of search, no incriminating material was found in the case of the respondent. The Assessing Officer, subsequent to the said search, on 25/26.02.2015 had issued notice under Section 153A of the Act to the respondent to furnish return of income of the respondent. In response to the said notice, the respondent filed its return of income on 07.03.2016 showing loss at Rs. 2,40,73,444/-. In order to verify the genuineness of the aforesaid return of the respondent, the Assessing Officer on 10/11.08.2016 issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the respondent. The Assessing Officer also issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the respondent on 15.11.2016 seeking information from the respondent in respect of the audited financial statements of the respondent up-loaded on the Income Tax website on 30.11.2014. The respondent, upon receipt of the said notice, filed a subsequent return of income manually before the Assessing Officer on 18.11.2016 showing now a loss of Rs. 92,68,340/- for the same concerned period. Again on 21.11.2016, the respondent filed another return of income manually before the Assessing Officer showing now an income of Rs. 19,73,110/-. The respondent revised its return of income from showing a loss of Rs. 2,40,73,444/- to the income of Rs. 19,73,110/- when the Assessing Officer confronted the respondent with the audited financial statements of the respondent for the concerned period wherein it was shown that the respondent had a profit of Rs. 18,95,065/- during the concerned period. As the respondent revised its return of income from loss of Rs. 2,40,73,444/- to income of Rs. 19,73,110/-; after issuance of notice under Section 143(2), questionnaire along with notice under Section 142(1), the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of the particulars of income and/or inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 2,60,46,553/- and notice under Section 274 read with section 271 of the Act was issued on 27.12.2016. Thereafter, the penalty proceedings continued and the Assessing Officer, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assesse and after due application of mind, passed the penalty order dated 29.06.2017 imposing penalty amounting to Rs. 1,69,01,620/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the respondent for concealing the particular of its income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.
4. The Assesse preferred an appeal against the said penalty order dated 29.06.2017 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT (Appeals)”). The said appeal was registered and the learned CIT (Appeals), vide its order dated 11.10.2018, allowed the said appeal of the Assesse on the ground that no penalty could have been imposed on the respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty on the respondent could have been imposed under Section 271AAB of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Learned ITAT. The said appeal preferred by the Revenue was registered for the A.Y. 2014-2015. The Learn
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable on income voluntarily offered and accepted in returns filed u/s 153A post-search, deemed as u/s 139(1) returns; nor on minor estimated or calculation error addition....
Compliance with all conditions under Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory to avoid penalty for undisclosed income.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.