Case Law Details

Case Name : Earth moving Equipment Service Corporation Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 6617/Mum/2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/05/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2010- 11
Courts : All ITAT (4069) ITAT Mumbai (1354)

Mere defect in the notice  u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause.

A perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and finally the same was levied on the same ground. We find that the assessee was issued two show cause notices- one in the standard printed form u/s 274 dated 04/03/2013 as placed on Page No.-86 of the paper book and another dated 27/08/2013 by way of letter as placed in Page No. 92 of the paper book. We find that in the first notice, the relevant clause has not been ticked off and the second notice is simply a show cause notice. However, in the quantum order Ld. AO, after due deliberations, clearly initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings. The penalty was finally levied on the same ground as well. Therefore, mere marking of relevant clause, in our opinion, on the facts of the case, has not caused any prejudice to the assessee particularly when the assessee voluntarily offered certain additions in the quantum proceedings with a specific request to AO for not initiating the penalty against the same. The assessee very well knew the charges / grounds for which he was being penalised and he actively contested the penalty before the Ld. AO. At this juncture, we find that the provisions of Section 292B comes to the rescue of the revenue which cures minor defect in the various notices  issued provided such notice in substance and effect was in conformity with the intent and purpose of the act. On overall facts and circumstances, we find that such condition was fulfilled in the instant case. We find that the revenue’s Special Leave Petition [SLP] dismissed by the Apex court in CIT Vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows [supra] confirmed the decision of Honourable High court, which in turn, relied upon the judgement rendered in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565]. The decision rendered by Honourable Bombay High court in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [supra] also placed the reliance on this judgement. After perusing the ratio of the judgement rendered in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [supra], we find that the assessee’s appeal was allowed by Hon’ble High court after considering the multiple factors and not solely on the basis of defect in notice u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected.

Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C  as ‘unexplained expenditure’  if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.

Section 69C could not be applied to the facts of the case as the payments were through banking channels which were duly reflected in the books of accounts and therefore, there was no unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Section 69C incurred by the assessee. Further, we find that the assessee was in possession of purchase invoices and various other documentary evidences qua these purchases. A bare perusal of the purchase invoices reveals that the assessee has purchased consumables etc. from the alleged bogus suppliers, which are connected, at least to some extent, with the business of the assessee. The assessee, during quantum proceedings itself filed revised computation of income after disallowing the alleged bogus purchases by citing the reason that the suppliers were not traceable during assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, the assessee was in possession of vital evidences in his possession to prima facie substantiate his purchases to some extent particularly when the payments were though banking channels. Merely because the suppliers could not be traced at the given address would not automatically lead to a conclusion that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The assessee made a claim which was bona fide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the suppliers. Therefore, overall facts of the case do not justify imposition of penalty on the assessee and therefore, the same deserves to be deleted on merits of the case. All the cited case laws support the view taken by us in the matter. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties, we allow assessee’s appeal.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (24683)
Type : Judiciary (9752)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930