Case Law Details
Kanshi Ram through Legal heir Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
On perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice issued was stereotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued.
As could be seen from the above the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we hold that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2003-04 is quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, New Delhi dated 30.12.2015 for the AY 2003-04 in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also filed the following additional grounds of appeal: –
1. “That the Ld. AO and CIT(A) have both erred in law and on facts in levy of illegal penalty of Rs. 3,55,594/-, the same be annulled, since penalty is levied in pursuance of a vague notice, issued without application of mind, without the specific offense, thereby depriving the assessee of reasonable opportunity of defending himself.
2. That the Ld. AO and CIT(A) have both erred in law and on facts in levy of illegal penalty, in pursuance of illegal addition made, without reference to any section, thereby depriving the assessee of safeguarding its interest. As per Article 265 of Constitution of India “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”. Penalty levied on illegal assessment be annulled.
3. That the Ld. AO and CIT(A) have both erred in law and on facts in levy of illegal penalty, for illegal assessment made without timely service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. First notice served by affixture on 24th December 2004, was beyond the time limit, penalty so levied be deleted.”
2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional grounds raised are purely legal grounds and verification of any fresh facts by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional ground be admitted and the same be disposed off on merits. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that this ground was not raised before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) but was raised for the first time before this Tribunal.
3. On hearing both the parties, we find that additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal ground and no verification of fresh facts are required. Thus, we admit the additional ground.
4. The Ld. Counsel submits that in this appeal the additional ground was raised contending that penalty order is bad in law as the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act submitted that the notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, the notice was issued for both the limbs without strike off irrelevant limb and specifying the charge for which the notice was issued. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since the notice was issued without specifying the charge for which notice was issued the penalty proceedings initiated were bad in law and consequently levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff reported in 291 ITR 519:
5. Referring to the above judgment, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the limb for which or the charge for which it was issued the penalty order passed pursuit to such notice is bad in law. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
6. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice issued was stereotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued.
7. We observe that identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT [434 ITR (1)] and the Hon’ble High Court held as under:
“Question No.l: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings?
181. It does. The primary burden ties on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(l)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other’s defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
182. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee’s favour.
183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushaiya does not lay down the correct proposition of law.
Question No.2: Has Kaushaiya failed to discuss the aspect of ‘prejudice?
184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, “fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him”. For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, “the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard”. It went onto observe that for sustaining the piea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, “it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed”. Kaushalya doses the discussion by observing that the notice issuing “is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done “,
185. No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non-application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non-application of mind and prejudice.
186. That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya’s insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met our acceptance.
Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non-application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off ?
187. In DUip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of “some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done”. Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars.
188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays nonappiication of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penai consequences assumes or implies prejudice.
189. In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that “where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, “except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest”.
190. Here, section 271(l)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
191. As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non-application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice.
Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two Tax Appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication.”
8. As could be seen from the above the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT [(2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom)] while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
9. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we hold that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2003-04 is quashed. As we have decided the additional ground in favour of the assessee by quashing the penalty order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not gone into as the adjudication of these grounds become only academic at this stage.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2022
