IT : Where assessee engaged in construction of houses had received
booking advance from purchasers and had furnished necessary evidence
in respect of booking advance in all cases but failed to produce
relevant evidence in respect of one party and offered same to tax, no
penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c)
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 349 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D'
Megh Malhar Developers
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Surat*
MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal No. 1408 (Ahd.) of 2010
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06]
NOVEMBER 9, 2012
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Agreed additions] - Assessment year 2005-06 -
Assessee was engaged in business of construction and during year it
was constructing 51 row houses for which it had accepted booking
advance from purchasers - During course of assessment proceedings in
response to query of Assessing Officer, assessee furnished necessary
evidence called for by Assessing Officer with respect to booking
advance in all cases except in case of 'M' - On that very ground
Assessing Officer levied penalty upon assessee - Assessee explained
that despite its best effort it could neither produce 'M' nor any
evidence in respect of booking advance and it therefore itself offered
same as income during assessment proceedings with an intention of
buying peace of mind and to avoid litigation - Whether explanation of
assessee prima facie appeared to be bona fide in view of fact that in
all other cases assessee furnished necessary evidence to satisfaction
of Assessing Officer and nothing had been brought on record by revenue
to controvert explanation furnished by assessee - Held, yes - Whether,
therefore, penalty was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 5][In favour of
assessee]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee was engaged in the business of construction and
during the year it was constructing 51 row houses for which it had
accepted the booking advance from the purchasers.
• During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the
query of the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished the necessary
evidence called for by the Assessing Officer with respect to the
booking advance in all cases except in the case of 'M' from whom the
assessee had received Rs. 9,18,000.
• Since the assessee could not produce either 'M' before the
Assessing Officer or evidence in the form of confirmation, the
assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings had himself
offered the booking advance of Rs. 9,18,000 received from 'M' as
income and the same was accepted.
• The assessee explained that despite its best effort it could
neither produce 'M' nor any evidence from him.
• The Assessing Officer however levied penalty under section 271(1)(c).
• On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed said order.
• On second appeal:
HELD
Explanation of assessee bona fide
• The explanation of the assessee that despite its best effort it
could neither produce 'M' nor any evidence from him, prima facie
appeared to be bona fide in view of the fact that in all other cases
the assessee furnished the necessary evidence to the satisfaction of
the Assessing Officer and nothing had been brought on record by the
revenue to controvert the explanation furnished by assessee. [Para 5]
• Section 271(1)(c) authorizes the Assessing Officer or the
Commissioner (Appeals) to levy penalty in case of concealment of
particulars of income or for furnishing in accurate particulars of
income. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) specifies as to when the
assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered
is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the
explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment
of income. It is a settled law that every addition of income by the
Assessing Officer will not automatically attract levy of penalty. From
the reading of Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1)(c) it is clear that
while computing the total income of an assessee, if the assessee fails
to prove that the explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed
concealment by the assessee. [Para 7]
Conclusion
• Seen in the background of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) in
the present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be
not bona fide. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, no
penalty is leviable in the present case. [Para 7]
CASE REVIEW
CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC)(para 7)
distinguished.
CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211 (Kar.) (para
7) followed.
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433 (SC)
(para 3), CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211
(Kar.) (para 3), National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114
Taxman 203 (Guj.) (para 3) and CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR
278/161 Taxman 169 (para 4).
M. J. Shah for the Appellant. T. Shankar for the Respondent.
ORDER
Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member - The present appeal is against the
order of CIT (A)-II, Surat dated 26-2-2010 whereby the penalty of Rs.
2,75,400/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c ) by the A.O. for A.Y. 2005-06 was
confirmed by CIT (A).
2. In this case the assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2005
declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny
and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated
20-12-2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 16,33,000/-
after making additions on account of unexplained introduction of
capital and on account of unexplained cash credits. Against the
addition of Rs. 7,15,000/- on account of unexplained introduction of
capital, assessee carried the matter before CIT (A). Assessee did not
contest the addition of Rs. 9,18,0007 made on account of unexplained
cash credits. CIT (A) vide his order dated 19-9-2008 allowed the
appeal of the assessee. It is on the addition of Rs. 9,18,000/- which
assessee did not contest in appeal. A.O. levied penalty of Rs.
2,75,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c ) and the same was upheld by CIT (A) vide
order dated 26-2-2010. It is against the aforesaid action of CIT (A),
the assessee is now in appeal before us.
3. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is a firm engaged
as builder and developer in the construction business. During the year
under appeal, the assessee was constructing 51 row houses. The
assessee had shown booking advance of Rs. 9,18,000/- for one of the
row house in the name of Shri Mahesh Dayabhai Patel. During the course
of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the
confirmations of booking of row houses. The assessee furnished the
confirmations in all cases except in the case of Mahesh Dayabhai
Patel. The ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee could not
produce either Shri Mahesh Patel or any evidence in respect of booking
advance, the assessee himself offered the same as income during
assessment proceedings with an intention of buying peace of mind and
to avoid litigation. The ld. A.R. further submitted that A.O. had not
brought any material evidence on record to show that the assessee had
concealed income. He therefore submitted that the penalty levied on
aforesaid addition be deleted. He further relied on the decisions in
the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman
433 (SC), CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211
(Kar.)National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203
(Guj.) and other decisions. He thus urged that the explanation offered
by the assessee was bona fide and therefore the penalty be deleted.
4. On the other hand the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee did not
furnish any evidence called for by the A.O. either before the A.O. or
before CIT (A) and accordingly the assessee has not discharged the
onus cast upon him. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman
169. He therefore urged that the A.O. has rightly levied the penalty
and for the detailed reasoning of CIT (A), the penalty order be
upheld.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The undisputed fact of the case is that the assessee is
engaged in the business of construction and during the year it was
constructing 51 row houses for which it had accepted the booking
advance from the purchasers. During the course of assessment
proceedings, in response to the query of the A.O., assessee furnished
the necessary evidence called for by the A.O. with respect to the
booking advance in all cases except in the case of Shri Mahesh Patel
from whom the assessee had received Rs. 9,18,000/-. Since the assessee
could not produce either Mr. Mahesh Patel before the A.O. or evidence
in the form of confirmation, the assessee, during the course of
assessment proceedings has himself offered the booking advance of Rs.
9,18,000/- received from Mr. Mahesh Patel as income and the same was
accepted. The explanation of the assessee that despite its best effort
it could neither produce Mr. Mahesh Patel nor any evidence from him,
prima facie appears to be bona fide in view of the fact that in all
other cases the assessee could furnish the necessary evidence to the
satisfaction of the A.O. Nothing has been brought on record by the
Revenue to controvert the explanation furnished by the assessee.
6. In the case of CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi (supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court held as under:
"A reading of sec.271 and 271(1)(c) and the Explanation appended
thereto manifestly makes it clear that every addition of income by the
ITO will not automatically attract levy of penalty. It is clear from
Explanation 1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that while computing the
total income of assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that such
explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed concealment by
the assessee. In the instant case, in response to the notice issued by
the ITO for addition of Rs. 2,01,000/-, the assessee replied that he
borrowed the same from different creditors who are all agriculturists.
When the assessee was asked to substantiate this claim, the assessee
made attempts to secure those creditors to be examined before the ITO.
Despite the best efforts of the assessee, he could not secure the
creditors as witnesses to substantiate his claim before the ITO.
Having no other alternative, the assessee voluntarily agreed for
addition of Rs. 2,01,000/- to his income as cash credit. Accordingly,
the ITO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,99,500/-
vide order of assessment dated 3rd August, 1994, and on that the
assessee has paid the taxes. Under these circumstances it cannot be
said that the explanation of the assessee for non inclusion of an
income of Rs. 2,01,000/- in his return of income is not bona fide. The
explanation offered by the assessee is available on record. Bona fide
failure on the part of the assessee in not substantiating his claim is
also available on record. The ITO, while passing the order of penalty
under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, has not considered the available
explanation of the assessee and whether the explanation so offered is
bona fide or not."
7. Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to
levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A
sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to
offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be
false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not
bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income. It is a
settled law that every addition of income by the A.O. will not
automatically attract levy of penalty. From the reading of Explanation
1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) it is clear that while computing the total
income of an assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that the
explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed concealment by
the assessee. Seen in the background of the provisions of Sec.
271(1)(c) and the aforesaid decisions of the High Court, in the
present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be not
bona fide. The decision relied by tne Revenue is distinguishable on
the facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present
case. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the
view that no penalty is leviable in the present case. We thus direct
the deletion of penalty.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
booking advance from purchasers and had furnished necessary evidence
in respect of booking advance in all cases but failed to produce
relevant evidence in respect of one party and offered same to tax, no
penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c)
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 349 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D'
Megh Malhar Developers
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Surat*
MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal No. 1408 (Ahd.) of 2010
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06]
NOVEMBER 9, 2012
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Agreed additions] - Assessment year 2005-06 -
Assessee was engaged in business of construction and during year it
was constructing 51 row houses for which it had accepted booking
advance from purchasers - During course of assessment proceedings in
response to query of Assessing Officer, assessee furnished necessary
evidence called for by Assessing Officer with respect to booking
advance in all cases except in case of 'M' - On that very ground
Assessing Officer levied penalty upon assessee - Assessee explained
that despite its best effort it could neither produce 'M' nor any
evidence in respect of booking advance and it therefore itself offered
same as income during assessment proceedings with an intention of
buying peace of mind and to avoid litigation - Whether explanation of
assessee prima facie appeared to be bona fide in view of fact that in
all other cases assessee furnished necessary evidence to satisfaction
of Assessing Officer and nothing had been brought on record by revenue
to controvert explanation furnished by assessee - Held, yes - Whether,
therefore, penalty was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 5][In favour of
assessee]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee was engaged in the business of construction and
during the year it was constructing 51 row houses for which it had
accepted the booking advance from the purchasers.
• During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the
query of the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished the necessary
evidence called for by the Assessing Officer with respect to the
booking advance in all cases except in the case of 'M' from whom the
assessee had received Rs. 9,18,000.
• Since the assessee could not produce either 'M' before the
Assessing Officer or evidence in the form of confirmation, the
assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings had himself
offered the booking advance of Rs. 9,18,000 received from 'M' as
income and the same was accepted.
• The assessee explained that despite its best effort it could
neither produce 'M' nor any evidence from him.
• The Assessing Officer however levied penalty under section 271(1)(c).
• On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed said order.
• On second appeal:
HELD
Explanation of assessee bona fide
• The explanation of the assessee that despite its best effort it
could neither produce 'M' nor any evidence from him, prima facie
appeared to be bona fide in view of the fact that in all other cases
the assessee furnished the necessary evidence to the satisfaction of
the Assessing Officer and nothing had been brought on record by the
revenue to controvert the explanation furnished by assessee. [Para 5]
• Section 271(1)(c) authorizes the Assessing Officer or the
Commissioner (Appeals) to levy penalty in case of concealment of
particulars of income or for furnishing in accurate particulars of
income. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) specifies as to when the
assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered
is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the
explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment
of income. It is a settled law that every addition of income by the
Assessing Officer will not automatically attract levy of penalty. From
the reading of Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1)(c) it is clear that
while computing the total income of an assessee, if the assessee fails
to prove that the explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed
concealment by the assessee. [Para 7]
Conclusion
• Seen in the background of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) in
the present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be
not bona fide. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, no
penalty is leviable in the present case. [Para 7]
CASE REVIEW
CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC)(para 7)
distinguished.
CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211 (Kar.) (para
7) followed.
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433 (SC)
(para 3), CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211
(Kar.) (para 3), National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114
Taxman 203 (Guj.) (para 3) and CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR
278/161 Taxman 169 (para 4).
M. J. Shah for the Appellant. T. Shankar for the Respondent.
ORDER
Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member - The present appeal is against the
order of CIT (A)-II, Surat dated 26-2-2010 whereby the penalty of Rs.
2,75,400/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c ) by the A.O. for A.Y. 2005-06 was
confirmed by CIT (A).
2. In this case the assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2005
declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny
and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated
20-12-2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 16,33,000/-
after making additions on account of unexplained introduction of
capital and on account of unexplained cash credits. Against the
addition of Rs. 7,15,000/- on account of unexplained introduction of
capital, assessee carried the matter before CIT (A). Assessee did not
contest the addition of Rs. 9,18,0007 made on account of unexplained
cash credits. CIT (A) vide his order dated 19-9-2008 allowed the
appeal of the assessee. It is on the addition of Rs. 9,18,000/- which
assessee did not contest in appeal. A.O. levied penalty of Rs.
2,75,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c ) and the same was upheld by CIT (A) vide
order dated 26-2-2010. It is against the aforesaid action of CIT (A),
the assessee is now in appeal before us.
3. Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is a firm engaged
as builder and developer in the construction business. During the year
under appeal, the assessee was constructing 51 row houses. The
assessee had shown booking advance of Rs. 9,18,000/- for one of the
row house in the name of Shri Mahesh Dayabhai Patel. During the course
of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the
confirmations of booking of row houses. The assessee furnished the
confirmations in all cases except in the case of Mahesh Dayabhai
Patel. The ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee could not
produce either Shri Mahesh Patel or any evidence in respect of booking
advance, the assessee himself offered the same as income during
assessment proceedings with an intention of buying peace of mind and
to avoid litigation. The ld. A.R. further submitted that A.O. had not
brought any material evidence on record to show that the assessee had
concealed income. He therefore submitted that the penalty levied on
aforesaid addition be deleted. He further relied on the decisions in
the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman
433 (SC), CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi [2007] 290 ITR 168/167 Taxman 211
(Kar.)National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125/114 Taxman 203
(Guj.) and other decisions. He thus urged that the explanation offered
by the assessee was bona fide and therefore the penalty be deleted.
4. On the other hand the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee did not
furnish any evidence called for by the A.O. either before the A.O. or
before CIT (A) and accordingly the assessee has not discharged the
onus cast upon him. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman
169. He therefore urged that the A.O. has rightly levied the penalty
and for the detailed reasoning of CIT (A), the penalty order be
upheld.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The undisputed fact of the case is that the assessee is
engaged in the business of construction and during the year it was
constructing 51 row houses for which it had accepted the booking
advance from the purchasers. During the course of assessment
proceedings, in response to the query of the A.O., assessee furnished
the necessary evidence called for by the A.O. with respect to the
booking advance in all cases except in the case of Shri Mahesh Patel
from whom the assessee had received Rs. 9,18,000/-. Since the assessee
could not produce either Mr. Mahesh Patel before the A.O. or evidence
in the form of confirmation, the assessee, during the course of
assessment proceedings has himself offered the booking advance of Rs.
9,18,000/- received from Mr. Mahesh Patel as income and the same was
accepted. The explanation of the assessee that despite its best effort
it could neither produce Mr. Mahesh Patel nor any evidence from him,
prima facie appears to be bona fide in view of the fact that in all
other cases the assessee could furnish the necessary evidence to the
satisfaction of the A.O. Nothing has been brought on record by the
Revenue to controvert the explanation furnished by the assessee.
6. In the case of CIT v. M.M. Gujamgadi (supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court held as under:
"A reading of sec.271 and 271(1)(c) and the Explanation appended
thereto manifestly makes it clear that every addition of income by the
ITO will not automatically attract levy of penalty. It is clear from
Explanation 1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that while computing the
total income of assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that such
explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed concealment by
the assessee. In the instant case, in response to the notice issued by
the ITO for addition of Rs. 2,01,000/-, the assessee replied that he
borrowed the same from different creditors who are all agriculturists.
When the assessee was asked to substantiate this claim, the assessee
made attempts to secure those creditors to be examined before the ITO.
Despite the best efforts of the assessee, he could not secure the
creditors as witnesses to substantiate his claim before the ITO.
Having no other alternative, the assessee voluntarily agreed for
addition of Rs. 2,01,000/- to his income as cash credit. Accordingly,
the ITO computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,99,500/-
vide order of assessment dated 3rd August, 1994, and on that the
assessee has paid the taxes. Under these circumstances it cannot be
said that the explanation of the assessee for non inclusion of an
income of Rs. 2,01,000/- in his return of income is not bona fide. The
explanation offered by the assessee is available on record. Bona fide
failure on the part of the assessee in not substantiating his claim is
also available on record. The ITO, while passing the order of penalty
under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, has not considered the available
explanation of the assessee and whether the explanation so offered is
bona fide or not."
7. Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to
levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A
sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to
offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be
false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not
bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income. It is a
settled law that every addition of income by the A.O. will not
automatically attract levy of penalty. From the reading of Explanation
1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) it is clear that while computing the total
income of an assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that the
explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed concealment by
the assessee. Seen in the background of the provisions of Sec.
271(1)(c) and the aforesaid decisions of the High Court, in the
present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be not
bona fide. The decision relied by tne Revenue is distinguishable on
the facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present
case. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the
view that no penalty is leviable in the present case. We thus direct
the deletion of penalty.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
IT : Where assessee voluntarily and bona fidely declared its income,
no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable
IT : Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable where no
amount has been added or disallowed in computing total income of
assessee
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC'
Vaish Degree College Trust
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Muzaffarnagar*
S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal Nos. 4538 to 4543 (Delhi) of 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2012
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Illustrations] - Assessment year 2003-04 to
2008-09 - Assessee-trust filed petition under section 273A along with
return of income - A copy of said petition was also endorsed to
Assessing Officer - Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued notice
under section 148 and completed assessment on returned income -
Thereafter penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also imposed upon
assessee - Whether since very basis of reassessment was petition under
section 273A, it could not be held that Assessing Officer had acquired
satisfaction regarding fulfilment of either of twin condition of
section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes - Whether further assessee voluntarily
and bona fidely declared its income, no penalty under section
271(1)(c) was leviable - Held, yes [Para 11][In favour of assessee]
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Explanation 1] - Assessment years 2003-04 to
2008-09 - Whether Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable
where no amount has been added or disallowed in computing total income
of assessee - Held, yes [Para 12][In favour of assessee]
Words & Phrases : Expressions 'concealed the particulars of income' or
'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income' as occurring in
section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Para 10]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee-trust filed a petition under section 273A along with
return of income before the Commissioner. Copy of said petition was
also forwarded to the Assessing Officer.
• Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section
148 to the assessee.
• The assessee filed the return declaring certain income.
• The assessment was completed on the returned income. The
Assessing Officer, thereafter, also imposed penalty under section
271(1)(c).
• The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty order.
Assessee's argument
• The assessee had voluntarily returned income; there was no
variation between the returned income in response to section 148 and
the assessment made under section 143 and, therefore, there was no
concealment of income.
Issue involved
• Whether penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee was valid?
HELD
• The Assessing Officer has concluded that action of assessee was
not voluntary because petition under section 273A was filed by
assessee only after action had been taken in the case of 'SDRRP'
School. The trustee, 'R', was common in both the trusts.
• Admittedly, both are different trusts and, therefore, once in a
particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee
managing its affairs and the same trustee of the second trust
voluntarily comes forward before the department and discloses material
facts, which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot
be said that assessee's conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can
be said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the
notice of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to
the department. [Para 10]
• Since assessee voluntarily filed the petition under section 273A
which admittedly was not very legal, as no penalty had been imposed,
but, nevertheless was the starting point for initiation of
reassessment proceedings. Section 271(1)(c) contemplates the
satisfaction of Assessing Officer in the course of any proceedings
under this Act regarding concealment of the particulars of his income
or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
• Therefore, Assessing Officer should have arrived at a
satisfaction in the course of reassessment proceedings regarding
fulfilment of either of these twin conditions. This satisfaction had
to be derived from the conduct of the assessee. Since the very basis
for initiation of reassessment proceedings was the petition under
section 273A along with which assessee had filed return of income and
the same income had been returned in consequence to proceedings under
section 148, therefore, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer had
judiciously acquired the satisfaction regarding fulfilment of either
of these twin conditions. The assessee-trust voluntarily and bona fide
belief declared its income and, therefore, no penalty was to be levied
in the peculiar facts of this case. [Para 11]
• As far as applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is
concerned the same, is not applicable because no amount has been added
or disallowed in computing the total income of assessee-trust. [Para
12]
Ankit Gupta for the Appellant. Satpal Singh for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order dated
21-07-2011 of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for AYs 2003-04 to
2008-09.
2. In these appeals, the issue is regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Except for the amount of penalty, the facts are identical in all the
AYs under consideration. Therefore, I refer to the facts as obtaining
in Ay 2003-04 vide ITA No. 4538/Del/2011.
3. The assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It was running a college known as "Vaish Inter College,
Muzaffarnagar". The assessee had not filed any return for the year
under consideration. The Assessing Officer has observed that during
the assessment proceedings of M/s Sarti Devi Raja Ram Public School,
it was noticed that Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta was the Secretary of that
trust. That trust was not registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act,
1961 till 29.03.2006. The exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) was also
disallowed on certain grounds. The Assessing Officer noticed that Sh.
Ramesh Chand Gupta was also Secretary in the present trust. He
observed that before any notice could be issued, the assessee filed a
petition u/s 273A of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2009 before the CIT,
Muzaffarnagar, copy of which was also endorsed to the Assessing
Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the petition filed by the
CIT, Muzaffarnagar was also having photocopies of the return which was
not filed in regular course. The income declared in the return was Rs.
2,11,070/- under the head income from house property.
4. Since the assessee did not file any return, notice u/s 148 was
issued on 03.08.2009, after recording following reasons:-
"Assessee, the society, filed a petition u/s 273A of the Income Tax
Act requesting the Commissioner of Income Tax to waive the penalty, if
any, livable or payable. From the perusal of the petition the
following factors gathered:-
1. The "Vaish College, Shamli is society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 was running a college known as "Vaish Inter
College" and was having the following properties:-
(a) 23 shops (S. No. 1 to 23) with Chabutra on Shamli Kairana Road, Shamli.
(b) 23 rooms along with varanda on the back of above shops.
(c) Two shops (No. 24 & 25) with Chabutar on Shamli Kairana Road, Shamli.
2. The aforesaid society donated the above properties to a trust
consisted the following trustee:-
(i) Lala Sukhbir Singh
(ii) Sh. Rameshwar Dutt
(iii) Sh. Salek Chand Sangal.
3. The object of the trustee was declared to maintain B.A. classes.
4. The terms and condition provide that the trustees of the trust
shell meet at least 6 once in every year for the purpose of
transaction the business of the said trust and the trustees may make
rules and regulation relation to such meeting and to conduct their
business.
5. The trustees are authorized at any time to sell the premises or
it's part at any time for the purpose of making investment of sale
proceed on more profitable securities.
The above terms and condition shows that the assessee is not
running any such educational institute, which is solely for education
and not for profit as the trustees were authorized to regulate the
Business and also to sell the properties for making investment for
more profit. Thus, the income of the trust is neither exempt u/s
10(23C)(iiiad) for which the institution must be wholly for education
and for profit nor exempt under section 11 of Income Tax Act, as the
object of the assessee is not wholly charitable and it is not
registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee filed the income and expenditure account for the year
under consideration in which the surplus is shown at Rs. 62,383/- on
perusal of the income and expenditure it is noticed that the assessee
is claiming depreciation of Rs. 1,81,359/- mainly on immovable
properties, being rooms and shop and can not be utilize for BA classes
and they are let out. That the depreciation is not trust as taxable.
The assessee has shown Rs. 4,29,306/- as rent received. As neither
any return is filed by the assessee not any notice requiring the
assessee to file the return is issued. I have reason to believe that
income to extent of Rs. 4,29,306/- escaped assessment."
5. In compliance to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return
declaring income of Rs. 2,13,256/-, under protest. After discussions,
the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at the returned income.
In the back drops of these facts, the Assessing Officer initiated
penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). In reply to show cause notice, the
assessee stated that it had filed voluntary return without any
detection by the Assessing Officer along with the petition u/s 273A
submitted before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2,
Muzaffarnagar. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed
the petition u/s 273A before CIT, Muzaffarnagar and not before him.
He, therefore, concluded that assessee had not filed any voluntary
return before the Assessing Officer. He further observed that the
return filed along with the petition u/s 273A before CIT, cannot be
treated as return filed voluntarily. He further pointed out that
assessee did not file the return in compliance to notice u/s 148
within time allowed in the notice i.e 30 days nor any reply was filed.
He, therefore, concluded that the return was filed after detection of
concealment by the department and after receiving the notice u/s 148.
He further pointed out that the penalty proceedings could not be
vacated or kept in abeyance on the ground of petition u/s 273A of the
Act, being pending before the CIT and the provisions of explanation 1
of section 271(1)(c) were also attracted as the explanation given by
the assessee, was not satisfactory.
6. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for the following reasons:-
(1) From the petition filed u/s 273A before CIT, it was evident that
the assessee from the very beginning, was quite apprehensive that its
action of filing so called "voluntary returns" could attract penalty.
Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was attracted.
(2) The petition u/s 273A was not filed voluntarily because Sh.
Ramesh Chand Gupta, the Secretary of the assessee trust had already
faced the income tax proceedings in another case namely M/s Sarti Devi
Raja Ram Public School (being its Secretary also) and it was
inevitable with the present case, would have faced the similar
proceedings.
(3) The trust was aware that it was deriving rental income since
beginning and it did not bother to file its return citing ignorance of
law which is not excusable.
(4) The so-called returns filed along with petition u/s 273A were
not returns but simply piece of paper in the eye of law. The Assessing
Officer utilized the information on these papers and got regularized
the returns.
(5) The assessee's conduct had not been fair. Just after receiving
the notice u/s 148, instead of filing the return or requesting the
Assessing Officer to treat the return of income which was accompanying
the petition u/s 273A as return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148,
the appellant presumed it automatic and further had chosen to file the
fresh return after five months after issue of notice u/s 148 under
"protest".
(6) In such circumstances, the entire assessed income as determined
by Assessing Officer constitutes the concealed income and the
Assessing Officer was fully justified in imposing penalty u/s
271(1)(c).
(7) The assessee had not bothered to pursue its petition u/s 273A of
the Income Tax Act. Instead it was surprising to note that just after
receiving the penalty order, the assessee had moved the petition u/s
264 of the Income Tax Act, before the CIT, Muzaffarnagar which had
also not been pursued by the assessee and present appeal had been
filed.
(8) Once there is material for deemed particular amount as concealed
income, imposition of penalty was automatic.
(9) The assessee's argument that voluntary return was filed, had no
basis because no return at all was filed by the assessee under any
section of the Act.
(10) When the assessee approached CIT u/s 273A, he does not dispute
his liability to pay the penalty. All he wants is a relief. The
conduct of the assessee right from filing of application u/s 273A of
the Act, had been doubtful inasmuch as before filing the return of
income, the assessee had approached the CIT for waiver of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act.
(11) The assessee filed appeal against imposition of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) wherein it desires the adjudicating authority to allow
relief which had not been allowed till date by the CIT u/s 273A or u/s
264 of the Act, as the assessee's applications are pending.
(12) The assessee's assertion that penalty for concealment of income
should be initiated from the return of income only is also held
untenable for the reason that there are plethora of decisions of
Hon'ble Courts wherein it has been held penalty for concealment of
income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed even if the assessment
is completed u/s 144 of the Act.
7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee re-iterated the facts and submitted
that the very basis of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was the petition filed by
the assessee u/s 273A. Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice u/s
148 was issued on the basis of petition u/s 273A. Therefore, the
assessee had voluntarily returned income. He further submitted that
there is no variation between the returned income in response to
section 148 and the assessment made u/s 143. Therefore, there was no
concealment of income. He submitted that while petition u/s 273A was
filed on 06.04.2009, the penalty order has been passed on 12.04.2010.
He submitted that none of the conditions as contemplated in
explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) have been fulfilled.
8. Ld. DR relied on the order of lower revenue authorities and
submitted that nothing was voluntary since the assessee did not file
return of income.
9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have
perused the records of the case. Facts are admitted. The assessee had
filed petition u/s 273A on 06.04.2009 along with return of income. A
copy of this petition was also endorsed to Assessing Officer. On the
basis of this petition, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on
03.08.2009. The assessee filed return of income without any variation
of returned income as filed before CIT, Muzaffarnagar along with
petition u/s 273A. The assessment had been completed on the same
amount.
10. In the back drop of these facts, it is to be examined whether the
assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished
inaccurate particulars of his income. Further it is to be examined
whether assessee had voluntarily disclosed the income before its
detection by the department. The expressions "concealed the
particulars of income" or "has furnished inaccurate particulars of
income" have not been defined either in section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere
in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not
identical in details, although they may lead to the same effect,
namely, keeping off a certain portion of income. The former is direct
and the letter may be indirect in its execution. The word "conceal"
implies to hide or withdraw from observations; to prevent the
discovering of; to withhold know of.
The offence of concealment is thus a direct attempt to hide an income
or a portion from the knowledge of Income Tax Authority. The Assessing
Officer has concluded that action of assessee was not voluntary
because petition u/s 273A was filed by assessee only after action had
been taken in the case of M/s Sarti Devi Raja Ram Public School. The
trustee, Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, was common in both the trusts.
Admittedly, both are different trusts and, therefore, once in a
particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee
managing its affairs and the same trustee is also managing the affairs
of other trust then, if the trustee of the second trust voluntarily
comes forward before the department and discloses material facts,
which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot be
said that assessee's conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can be
said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the notice
of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to the
department.
11. In the present case, since assessee voluntarily filed the petition
u/s 273A which admittedly was not very legal, as no penalty had been
imposed, but, nevertheless was the starting point for initiation of
reassessment proceedings.
Section 271(1)(c) contemplates the satisfaction of Assessing Officer
in the course of any proceedings under this Act regarding concealment
of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of such income. Therefore, Assessing Officer should have
arrived at a satisfaction in the course of reassessment proceedings
regarding fulfilment of either of these twin conditions. This
satisfaction had to be derived from the conduct of the assessee. Since
the very basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings was the
petition u/s 273A along with which assessee had filed return of income
and the same income had been returned in consequence to proceedings
u/s 148, therefore, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer had
judiciously acquired the satisfaction regarding fulfillment of wither
of these twin conditions. In my opinion, the assessee trust
voluntarily and bona fide belief declared its income and, therefore,
no penalty was to be levied in the peculiar facts of this case.
12. As far as applicability of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is
concerned the same, is not applicable because no amount has been added
or disallowed in computing the total income of assessee trust. Penalty
proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, to narrow or
to technical view cannot be taken but the overall conduct of assessee
has to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the assessee
trust should be saddled with penalty or not.
13. In view of the above discussion, the assessee's appeals are allowed.
14. In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed.
USP
no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable
IT : Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable where no
amount has been added or disallowed in computing total income of
assessee
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC'
Vaish Degree College Trust
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Muzaffarnagar*
S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal Nos. 4538 to 4543 (Delhi) of 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2012
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Illustrations] - Assessment year 2003-04 to
2008-09 - Assessee-trust filed petition under section 273A along with
return of income - A copy of said petition was also endorsed to
Assessing Officer - Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued notice
under section 148 and completed assessment on returned income -
Thereafter penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also imposed upon
assessee - Whether since very basis of reassessment was petition under
section 273A, it could not be held that Assessing Officer had acquired
satisfaction regarding fulfilment of either of twin condition of
section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes - Whether further assessee voluntarily
and bona fidely declared its income, no penalty under section
271(1)(c) was leviable - Held, yes [Para 11][In favour of assessee]
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For
concealment of income [Explanation 1] - Assessment years 2003-04 to
2008-09 - Whether Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable
where no amount has been added or disallowed in computing total income
of assessee - Held, yes [Para 12][In favour of assessee]
Words & Phrases : Expressions 'concealed the particulars of income' or
'has furnished inaccurate particulars of income' as occurring in
section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Para 10]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee-trust filed a petition under section 273A along with
return of income before the Commissioner. Copy of said petition was
also forwarded to the Assessing Officer.
• Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section
148 to the assessee.
• The assessee filed the return declaring certain income.
• The assessment was completed on the returned income. The
Assessing Officer, thereafter, also imposed penalty under section
271(1)(c).
• The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty order.
Assessee's argument
• The assessee had voluntarily returned income; there was no
variation between the returned income in response to section 148 and
the assessment made under section 143 and, therefore, there was no
concealment of income.
Issue involved
• Whether penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee was valid?
HELD
• The Assessing Officer has concluded that action of assessee was
not voluntary because petition under section 273A was filed by
assessee only after action had been taken in the case of 'SDRRP'
School. The trustee, 'R', was common in both the trusts.
• Admittedly, both are different trusts and, therefore, once in a
particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee
managing its affairs and the same trustee of the second trust
voluntarily comes forward before the department and discloses material
facts, which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot
be said that assessee's conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can
be said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the
notice of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to
the department. [Para 10]
• Since assessee voluntarily filed the petition under section 273A
which admittedly was not very legal, as no penalty had been imposed,
but, nevertheless was the starting point for initiation of
reassessment proceedings. Section 271(1)(c) contemplates the
satisfaction of Assessing Officer in the course of any proceedings
under this Act regarding concealment of the particulars of his income
or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
• Therefore, Assessing Officer should have arrived at a
satisfaction in the course of reassessment proceedings regarding
fulfilment of either of these twin conditions. This satisfaction had
to be derived from the conduct of the assessee. Since the very basis
for initiation of reassessment proceedings was the petition under
section 273A along with which assessee had filed return of income and
the same income had been returned in consequence to proceedings under
section 148, therefore, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer had
judiciously acquired the satisfaction regarding fulfilment of either
of these twin conditions. The assessee-trust voluntarily and bona fide
belief declared its income and, therefore, no penalty was to be levied
in the peculiar facts of this case. [Para 11]
• As far as applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is
concerned the same, is not applicable because no amount has been added
or disallowed in computing the total income of assessee-trust. [Para
12]
Ankit Gupta for the Appellant. Satpal Singh for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order dated
21-07-2011 of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for AYs 2003-04 to
2008-09.
2. In these appeals, the issue is regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Except for the amount of penalty, the facts are identical in all the
AYs under consideration. Therefore, I refer to the facts as obtaining
in Ay 2003-04 vide ITA No. 4538/Del/2011.
3. The assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It was running a college known as "Vaish Inter College,
Muzaffarnagar". The assessee had not filed any return for the year
under consideration. The Assessing Officer has observed that during
the assessment proceedings of M/s Sarti Devi Raja Ram Public School,
it was noticed that Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta was the Secretary of that
trust. That trust was not registered u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act,
1961 till 29.03.2006. The exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) was also
disallowed on certain grounds. The Assessing Officer noticed that Sh.
Ramesh Chand Gupta was also Secretary in the present trust. He
observed that before any notice could be issued, the assessee filed a
petition u/s 273A of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2009 before the CIT,
Muzaffarnagar, copy of which was also endorsed to the Assessing
Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that the petition filed by the
CIT, Muzaffarnagar was also having photocopies of the return which was
not filed in regular course. The income declared in the return was Rs.
2,11,070/- under the head income from house property.
4. Since the assessee did not file any return, notice u/s 148 was
issued on 03.08.2009, after recording following reasons:-
"Assessee, the society, filed a petition u/s 273A of the Income Tax
Act requesting the Commissioner of Income Tax to waive the penalty, if
any, livable or payable. From the perusal of the petition the
following factors gathered:-
1. The "Vaish College, Shamli is society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 was running a college known as "Vaish Inter
College" and was having the following properties:-
(a) 23 shops (S. No. 1 to 23) with Chabutra on Shamli Kairana Road, Shamli.
(b) 23 rooms along with varanda on the back of above shops.
(c) Two shops (No. 24 & 25) with Chabutar on Shamli Kairana Road, Shamli.
2. The aforesaid society donated the above properties to a trust
consisted the following trustee:-
(i) Lala Sukhbir Singh
(ii) Sh. Rameshwar Dutt
(iii) Sh. Salek Chand Sangal.
3. The object of the trustee was declared to maintain B.A. classes.
4. The terms and condition provide that the trustees of the trust
shell meet at least 6 once in every year for the purpose of
transaction the business of the said trust and the trustees may make
rules and regulation relation to such meeting and to conduct their
business.
5. The trustees are authorized at any time to sell the premises or
it's part at any time for the purpose of making investment of sale
proceed on more profitable securities.
The above terms and condition shows that the assessee is not
running any such educational institute, which is solely for education
and not for profit as the trustees were authorized to regulate the
Business and also to sell the properties for making investment for
more profit. Thus, the income of the trust is neither exempt u/s
10(23C)(iiiad) for which the institution must be wholly for education
and for profit nor exempt under section 11 of Income Tax Act, as the
object of the assessee is not wholly charitable and it is not
registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee filed the income and expenditure account for the year
under consideration in which the surplus is shown at Rs. 62,383/- on
perusal of the income and expenditure it is noticed that the assessee
is claiming depreciation of Rs. 1,81,359/- mainly on immovable
properties, being rooms and shop and can not be utilize for BA classes
and they are let out. That the depreciation is not trust as taxable.
The assessee has shown Rs. 4,29,306/- as rent received. As neither
any return is filed by the assessee not any notice requiring the
assessee to file the return is issued. I have reason to believe that
income to extent of Rs. 4,29,306/- escaped assessment."
5. In compliance to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return
declaring income of Rs. 2,13,256/-, under protest. After discussions,
the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at the returned income.
In the back drops of these facts, the Assessing Officer initiated
penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). In reply to show cause notice, the
assessee stated that it had filed voluntary return without any
detection by the Assessing Officer along with the petition u/s 273A
submitted before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2,
Muzaffarnagar. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed
the petition u/s 273A before CIT, Muzaffarnagar and not before him.
He, therefore, concluded that assessee had not filed any voluntary
return before the Assessing Officer. He further observed that the
return filed along with the petition u/s 273A before CIT, cannot be
treated as return filed voluntarily. He further pointed out that
assessee did not file the return in compliance to notice u/s 148
within time allowed in the notice i.e 30 days nor any reply was filed.
He, therefore, concluded that the return was filed after detection of
concealment by the department and after receiving the notice u/s 148.
He further pointed out that the penalty proceedings could not be
vacated or kept in abeyance on the ground of petition u/s 273A of the
Act, being pending before the CIT and the provisions of explanation 1
of section 271(1)(c) were also attracted as the explanation given by
the assessee, was not satisfactory.
6. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for the following reasons:-
(1) From the petition filed u/s 273A before CIT, it was evident that
the assessee from the very beginning, was quite apprehensive that its
action of filing so called "voluntary returns" could attract penalty.
Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was attracted.
(2) The petition u/s 273A was not filed voluntarily because Sh.
Ramesh Chand Gupta, the Secretary of the assessee trust had already
faced the income tax proceedings in another case namely M/s Sarti Devi
Raja Ram Public School (being its Secretary also) and it was
inevitable with the present case, would have faced the similar
proceedings.
(3) The trust was aware that it was deriving rental income since
beginning and it did not bother to file its return citing ignorance of
law which is not excusable.
(4) The so-called returns filed along with petition u/s 273A were
not returns but simply piece of paper in the eye of law. The Assessing
Officer utilized the information on these papers and got regularized
the returns.
(5) The assessee's conduct had not been fair. Just after receiving
the notice u/s 148, instead of filing the return or requesting the
Assessing Officer to treat the return of income which was accompanying
the petition u/s 273A as return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148,
the appellant presumed it automatic and further had chosen to file the
fresh return after five months after issue of notice u/s 148 under
"protest".
(6) In such circumstances, the entire assessed income as determined
by Assessing Officer constitutes the concealed income and the
Assessing Officer was fully justified in imposing penalty u/s
271(1)(c).
(7) The assessee had not bothered to pursue its petition u/s 273A of
the Income Tax Act. Instead it was surprising to note that just after
receiving the penalty order, the assessee had moved the petition u/s
264 of the Income Tax Act, before the CIT, Muzaffarnagar which had
also not been pursued by the assessee and present appeal had been
filed.
(8) Once there is material for deemed particular amount as concealed
income, imposition of penalty was automatic.
(9) The assessee's argument that voluntary return was filed, had no
basis because no return at all was filed by the assessee under any
section of the Act.
(10) When the assessee approached CIT u/s 273A, he does not dispute
his liability to pay the penalty. All he wants is a relief. The
conduct of the assessee right from filing of application u/s 273A of
the Act, had been doubtful inasmuch as before filing the return of
income, the assessee had approached the CIT for waiver of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act.
(11) The assessee filed appeal against imposition of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) wherein it desires the adjudicating authority to allow
relief which had not been allowed till date by the CIT u/s 273A or u/s
264 of the Act, as the assessee's applications are pending.
(12) The assessee's assertion that penalty for concealment of income
should be initiated from the return of income only is also held
untenable for the reason that there are plethora of decisions of
Hon'ble Courts wherein it has been held penalty for concealment of
income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed even if the assessment
is completed u/s 144 of the Act.
7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee re-iterated the facts and submitted
that the very basis of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was the petition filed by
the assessee u/s 273A. Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice u/s
148 was issued on the basis of petition u/s 273A. Therefore, the
assessee had voluntarily returned income. He further submitted that
there is no variation between the returned income in response to
section 148 and the assessment made u/s 143. Therefore, there was no
concealment of income. He submitted that while petition u/s 273A was
filed on 06.04.2009, the penalty order has been passed on 12.04.2010.
He submitted that none of the conditions as contemplated in
explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) have been fulfilled.
8. Ld. DR relied on the order of lower revenue authorities and
submitted that nothing was voluntary since the assessee did not file
return of income.
9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have
perused the records of the case. Facts are admitted. The assessee had
filed petition u/s 273A on 06.04.2009 along with return of income. A
copy of this petition was also endorsed to Assessing Officer. On the
basis of this petition, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on
03.08.2009. The assessee filed return of income without any variation
of returned income as filed before CIT, Muzaffarnagar along with
petition u/s 273A. The assessment had been completed on the same
amount.
10. In the back drop of these facts, it is to be examined whether the
assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished
inaccurate particulars of his income. Further it is to be examined
whether assessee had voluntarily disclosed the income before its
detection by the department. The expressions "concealed the
particulars of income" or "has furnished inaccurate particulars of
income" have not been defined either in section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere
in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not
identical in details, although they may lead to the same effect,
namely, keeping off a certain portion of income. The former is direct
and the letter may be indirect in its execution. The word "conceal"
implies to hide or withdraw from observations; to prevent the
discovering of; to withhold know of.
The offence of concealment is thus a direct attempt to hide an income
or a portion from the knowledge of Income Tax Authority. The Assessing
Officer has concluded that action of assessee was not voluntary
because petition u/s 273A was filed by assessee only after action had
been taken in the case of M/s Sarti Devi Raja Ram Public School. The
trustee, Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, was common in both the trusts.
Admittedly, both are different trusts and, therefore, once in a
particular trust, some default came to the notice of a trustee
managing its affairs and the same trustee is also managing the affairs
of other trust then, if the trustee of the second trust voluntarily
comes forward before the department and discloses material facts,
which have been duly accepted by the department, then it cannot be
said that assessee's conduct was not bona fide or voluntary. It can be
said to be a case of concealment only when income comes to the notice
of assessee but he still withholds the same from disclosing to the
department.
11. In the present case, since assessee voluntarily filed the petition
u/s 273A which admittedly was not very legal, as no penalty had been
imposed, but, nevertheless was the starting point for initiation of
reassessment proceedings.
Section 271(1)(c) contemplates the satisfaction of Assessing Officer
in the course of any proceedings under this Act regarding concealment
of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of such income. Therefore, Assessing Officer should have
arrived at a satisfaction in the course of reassessment proceedings
regarding fulfilment of either of these twin conditions. This
satisfaction had to be derived from the conduct of the assessee. Since
the very basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings was the
petition u/s 273A along with which assessee had filed return of income
and the same income had been returned in consequence to proceedings
u/s 148, therefore, it cannot be held that Assessing Officer had
judiciously acquired the satisfaction regarding fulfillment of wither
of these twin conditions. In my opinion, the assessee trust
voluntarily and bona fide belief declared its income and, therefore,
no penalty was to be levied in the peculiar facts of this case.
12. As far as applicability of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is
concerned the same, is not applicable because no amount has been added
or disallowed in computing the total income of assessee trust. Penalty
proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, to narrow or
to technical view cannot be taken but the overall conduct of assessee
has to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the assessee
trust should be saddled with penalty or not.
13. In view of the above discussion, the assessee's appeals are allowed.
14. In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed.
USP
IT : Where ground on which reassessment notice under section 148 was
issued was dropped while passing reassessment order, Assessing Officer
could not reassess or assess any other income which had escaped
assessment
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 352 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Commissioner of Income-tax-4
v.
Double Dot Finance Ltd.*
J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 856 OF 2011,
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 12 OF 2010†
JANUARY 21, 2013
Section 147, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
Income escaping assessment - General [Scope of reassessment] -
Assessment year 1999-2000 - Whether where ground on which reassessment
notice under section 148 was issued was dropped while passing
reassessment order, Assessing Officer could not reassess or assess any
other income which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in
reassessment proceedings - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee]
FACTS
• After processing of return under section 143(1), the Assessing
Officer issued notice under section 148 seeking to reopen the
assessment of the assessee on the ground that capital subsidy was
outstanding in respect of the business and if that was taken into
account, the income was likely to increase by the same.
• However, while passing the order under section 143(3), read with
section 147, the ground on which the assessment was reopened had been
dropped i.e., not confirmed and certain other income was added.
• The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reopening of assessment.
• The Tribunal by its order set aside the reassessment.
HELD
• The High Court in the matter of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.[2011]
331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom.), has held that unless the
Assessing Officer assessees the income with reference to which he had
formed a reason to believe within the meaning of section 147, it would
not be open to him reassess or assess any other income chargeable to
tax which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in
reassessment proceedings.
• In this case, admittedly the ground on which reassessment notice
under section 148 was issued was dropped while passing the
reassessment order under section 143(3), read with section 147
• Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Jet
Airways (I) Ltd. (supra), no occasion to entertain the proposed
question of law arises. [Para 3]
• Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [Para 4]
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Shreeram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) (para 2) and CIT v.
Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom.)
(para 3).
Vimal Gupta and Mrs. Padma Diwakar for the Appellant. Salil Kapoor and
Jitendra Singh for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1999-2000,
the following question of law has been raised for our consideration.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law
the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment order made by
the Assessing Officer by holding that the initiation of reassessment
proceedings within a period of four years was bad in law?
2. Brief Facts:
(a) The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of
manufacture of food products. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the
respondent-assessee had filed return of income claiming a net loss of
Rs. 18.57 lacs. This return of income was processed on 14.11.2000
under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) determining
a refund of Rs. 5.82 lacs to the respondent-assessee.
(b) On 29.03.2004, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under
Section 148 to the Respondent seeking to reopen the assessment for the
assessment year 1999-2000. This was on the ground that the capital
subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs was outstanding in respect of the business and
if this is taken into account the income is likely to increase by the
same while computing the gains on account of slump sale.
(c) Consequent to the above reopening of assessment, the Assessing
Officer by an order dated 27.03.2006 under Section 143(3) readwith
Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the
respondent-assessee at Rs. 31.26 lacs. However, while passing the
above order on reassessment the ground on which the assessment was
reopened namely that the subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs claimed by the
assessee had not been adjusted resulting in income escaping adjustment
had been dropped i.e. not confirmed. However, the reassessment order
dated 27.03.2006, added certain other income to the
respondent-assessee's declared loss for the assessment year 1999-2000
and determined an income of Rs. 31.26 crores.
(d) In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the
CIT(A)) by his order dated 10.08.2006 partly allowed the respondent's
appeal. However, the reopening of the assessment for the assessment
year 1999-2000 by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
(e) On second appeal, the Tribunal by its order dated 28.10.2009 set
aside the reassessment on the ground that the basis for which the
assessment was reopened namely receipt of subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs not
been adjusted, was dropped during the reassessment proceeding as no
addition on that account was made. The Tribunal following the decision
of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreeram Singh
[2008] 306 ITR 343 held that where no addition is made on account of
the reason recorded for reopening the assessment, then jurisdiction of
the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment comes to an end.
3. We note that the aforesaid view of the Rejasthan High Court in the
matter of Shriram Singh (supra) followed by the Tribunal in the
impugned order is also a view taken by this court in the matter of CIT
v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117
(Bom.), wherein it has been held that unless the Assessing Officer
assesses the income with reference to which he had formed a reason to
believe within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, it would not be
open to him reassess or assess any other income chargeable to tax
which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in reassessment
proceedings. In this case, admittedly the ground on which reassessment
notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued was dropped while
passing the reassessment order dated 27.03.2006 under Section 143(3)
read with Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in view of the decision of
this court in the matter of Jet Airways (I.) Ltd. (supra), no occasion
to entertain the proposed question of law arises.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. In view of the above order passed by us on the appeal by the
revenue, the cross objection filed by the cross objector (original
respondent) against the impugned order is sought to be withdrawn.
6. Thus, the cross objection is dismissed as withdrawn.
issued was dropped while passing reassessment order, Assessing Officer
could not reassess or assess any other income which had escaped
assessment
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 352 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Commissioner of Income-tax-4
v.
Double Dot Finance Ltd.*
J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 856 OF 2011,
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 12 OF 2010†
JANUARY 21, 2013
Section 147, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -
Income escaping assessment - General [Scope of reassessment] -
Assessment year 1999-2000 - Whether where ground on which reassessment
notice under section 148 was issued was dropped while passing
reassessment order, Assessing Officer could not reassess or assess any
other income which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in
reassessment proceedings - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee]
FACTS
• After processing of return under section 143(1), the Assessing
Officer issued notice under section 148 seeking to reopen the
assessment of the assessee on the ground that capital subsidy was
outstanding in respect of the business and if that was taken into
account, the income was likely to increase by the same.
• However, while passing the order under section 143(3), read with
section 147, the ground on which the assessment was reopened had been
dropped i.e., not confirmed and certain other income was added.
• The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the reopening of assessment.
• The Tribunal by its order set aside the reassessment.
HELD
• The High Court in the matter of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.[2011]
331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom.), has held that unless the
Assessing Officer assessees the income with reference to which he had
formed a reason to believe within the meaning of section 147, it would
not be open to him reassess or assess any other income chargeable to
tax which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in
reassessment proceedings.
• In this case, admittedly the ground on which reassessment notice
under section 148 was issued was dropped while passing the
reassessment order under section 143(3), read with section 147
• Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Jet
Airways (I) Ltd. (supra), no occasion to entertain the proposed
question of law arises. [Para 3]
• Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [Para 4]
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Shreeram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) (para 2) and CIT v.
Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bom.)
(para 3).
Vimal Gupta and Mrs. Padma Diwakar for the Appellant. Salil Kapoor and
Jitendra Singh for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1999-2000,
the following question of law has been raised for our consideration.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law
the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment order made by
the Assessing Officer by holding that the initiation of reassessment
proceedings within a period of four years was bad in law?
2. Brief Facts:
(a) The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of
manufacture of food products. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the
respondent-assessee had filed return of income claiming a net loss of
Rs. 18.57 lacs. This return of income was processed on 14.11.2000
under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) determining
a refund of Rs. 5.82 lacs to the respondent-assessee.
(b) On 29.03.2004, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under
Section 148 to the Respondent seeking to reopen the assessment for the
assessment year 1999-2000. This was on the ground that the capital
subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs was outstanding in respect of the business and
if this is taken into account the income is likely to increase by the
same while computing the gains on account of slump sale.
(c) Consequent to the above reopening of assessment, the Assessing
Officer by an order dated 27.03.2006 under Section 143(3) readwith
Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the
respondent-assessee at Rs. 31.26 lacs. However, while passing the
above order on reassessment the ground on which the assessment was
reopened namely that the subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs claimed by the
assessee had not been adjusted resulting in income escaping adjustment
had been dropped i.e. not confirmed. However, the reassessment order
dated 27.03.2006, added certain other income to the
respondent-assessee's declared loss for the assessment year 1999-2000
and determined an income of Rs. 31.26 crores.
(d) In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the
CIT(A)) by his order dated 10.08.2006 partly allowed the respondent's
appeal. However, the reopening of the assessment for the assessment
year 1999-2000 by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
(e) On second appeal, the Tribunal by its order dated 28.10.2009 set
aside the reassessment on the ground that the basis for which the
assessment was reopened namely receipt of subsidy of Rs. 40 lacs not
been adjusted, was dropped during the reassessment proceeding as no
addition on that account was made. The Tribunal following the decision
of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreeram Singh
[2008] 306 ITR 343 held that where no addition is made on account of
the reason recorded for reopening the assessment, then jurisdiction of
the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment comes to an end.
3. We note that the aforesaid view of the Rejasthan High Court in the
matter of Shriram Singh (supra) followed by the Tribunal in the
impugned order is also a view taken by this court in the matter of CIT
v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 Taxman 117
(Bom.), wherein it has been held that unless the Assessing Officer
assesses the income with reference to which he had formed a reason to
believe within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, it would not be
open to him reassess or assess any other income chargeable to tax
which has escaped assessment and comes to his notice in reassessment
proceedings. In this case, admittedly the ground on which reassessment
notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued was dropped while
passing the reassessment order dated 27.03.2006 under Section 143(3)
read with Section 147 of the Act. Thus, in view of the decision of
this court in the matter of Jet Airways (I.) Ltd. (supra), no occasion
to entertain the proposed question of law arises.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. In view of the above order passed by us on the appeal by the
revenue, the cross objection filed by the cross objector (original
respondent) against the impugned order is sought to be withdrawn.
6. Thus, the cross objection is dismissed as withdrawn.
IT : Where assessee claimed that cash payment to purchase property was
made in parts and each payment was below Rs. 20,000 but material
submitted did not indicate correct names and addresses of recipients,
cash payment under section 40A(3) be disallowed
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 229 (Amritsar - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH
Raman Mahajan, HUF
v.
Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Amritsar*
H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND B.P. Jain, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal No. 182 (Asr.) of 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08]
JANUARY 22, 2013
Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance -
Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits [Purchase Consideration] -
Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee, engaged in realty business,
purchased a property by making cash payment - It claimed that payments
were made in parts and each payment was either less than or of Rs
20,000 - As per assessee's version, those payments were made at
different hours of same day and on different dates - However, vouchers
presented for this purpose did not indicate correct names and
addresses of recipients and were without any cogent evidence - Whether
since vouchers were self-made to come out of clutches of section
40A(3) and assessee had failed to substantiate its claim, disallowance
made by Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) was justified - Held,
yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee, engaged in realty business, purchased a property.
• The payment to purchase the property was made otherwise than by
an account payee cheque or demand draft and it exceeded the limit of
Rs. 20,000.
• Since there was neither any business exigency nor any reasonable
cause was shown, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under section
40A(3).
• The assessee submitted that each payment was less than or of Rs.
20,000 and made at different hours of a same day.
• The Commissioner (Appeals) found that vouchers did not indicate
the exact name of the recipients and complete addresses identifying
the authenticity of the recipients. Accordingly he confirmed the
disallowance.
Arguments of assessee
• Purchases made of the lands by the assessee were on power of
attorney system and the purchase deed had not been executed.
Therefore, such purchases though made in cash and lands so purchased
sold in cash were not covered under the provisions of section 40A(3).
Issue involved
• Whether where assessee made payments not by A/c payee cheque or
draft, provisions of section 40A(3) were attracted though property was
sold on power of attorney system not by registered purchase deed.?
HELD
Payment exceeding limit otherwise than by A/c payee cheque entails
applicability of section 40A(3)
• As regards the sale of the property held as stock-in-trade has
been sold and the assessee has received the consideration otherwise
than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, the assessee
after incurring expenditure on buying the property as stock-in-trade
as per agreement to sell, power of attorney and other documents
alongwith cash receipts as receipt of total consideration in lieu of
the property sold by the seller is directly covered under the
provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act since the assessee had made
the payments otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee
bank draft which exceeds Rs. 20,000. [Para 10]
Assessee could not substantiate its claim
• The assessee has not substantiated his claim that the payments of
Rs.20,000 or more with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.
20,000 or less before the Assessing Officer. It is also not on record
whether such claim was actually made before the Assessing Officer or
not. With regard to the claim before the Commissioner (Appeals), all
the vouchers are self-made vouchers and without any authenticity of
the name and complete address of the recipient.
• From the claim of the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals),
the payments are claimed to have been made on different hours on the
same day and accordingly on different dates.
• Payments of Rs. 20,000 claimed to have been made at different
hours on the same day is nothing but a self-made story to come out of
the provisions of section 40A(3), which is without any evidence and
cogent explanation. [Para 11]
Conclusion
• Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly not accepted such claim of the
assessee, which on the face of it is a false claim and is without any
evidence or any cogent explanation. Nothing has been brought on record
to show the assessee is covered under rule 6DD of the Income-tax
Rules, 1962. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of the
assessee. [Para 11]
CASES REFERRED TO
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 TIR 383 (SC) (para
3), CIT v. Aloo Supply & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680 (Ori.) and CIT v. Bal
Krishan Jagdish Chand [2007] 164 Taxman 459 (Punj. & Har.) (para 7).
Padam Bahl for the Appellant. R.L. Chhanalia for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per Bench : This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the
CIT(A), Amritsar, dated 12.03.2009 relating to assessment year
2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming
the addition of Rs.2,33,332/- made by Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3),
Amritsar on account of disallowance for expenditure of Rs.11,66,662/-
@ 20% on the alleged payments made in violation of provisions of Sec.
40(A)(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has failed to appreciate that the
ITO Ward 4(3), had failed to discharge the onus to prove that cash
payments of Rs.11,66,662/- were made by the assessee at one time and
not as claimed by the assessee.
3. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has failed to appreciate the real
import of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and has ignored
the fact that the payment were made bonafide and stood duly confirmed
by the receiver in the purchase deed."
2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl, CA has also
raised additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:
"1. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar and the ld. A.O. have both failed to
appreciate that the assessee had acquired & disposed the lands under
Power of Attorney & had not executed any purchase deed entailing the
provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
3. The additional ground is admitted since the matter goes deep into
the root of the matter and is a legal ground in view of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.
Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383.
4. The brief facts in the grounds of the assessee and the additional
ground of the assessee are that the assessee derives business income
from dealings in real estate i.e. from sale and purchase of land and
selling of land/plots after development. The AO found that the
assessee has incurred expenditure by making cash payment exceeding Rs.
20,000/- other than by an account payee bank cheque or account payee
bank demand draft to the following persons:
Sl. Name of the party(S/Shri) Date Amt (in (Rs)
1 Sawinder Singh S/o Dharan Singh, Village Verka, Tehsil Verka,
Amritsar. 28.07.2007 7,00,000/-
2. Kuldip Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Rai, Butter Kala, Tehsil Baba Bakala,
Amritsar. 30.3.2007 4,66,662/-
Total 11,66,662/-
The assessee was given show cause notice for which the assessee filed
its written reply dated 18.12.2009. The AO sought direction under
section 144A from his Range Head, who had directed that it is a fit
case where the assessee has violated provisions of section 40A(3) by
making cash purchases exceeding Rs.20,000/- other than by way of
crossed cheque/demand draft in respect of the above cited instances
when there was neither any business exigency nor any cause or reason
provided under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO
accordingly made disallowance of Rs.2,33,332/- @ 20% of such cash
purchases amounting to Rs.11,66,662/-.
5. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he has made cash
payment of each amount of Rs.20,000/-, which for the sake of clarity
is reproduced as under:
Date Time Amount in (Rs.)
24.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
24.11.06 12AM 20,000/-
24.11.06 3PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 60,000/-
27.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
27.11.06 10.30AM 20,000/-
27.11.06 12.15PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 3.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 4.15PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
28.11.06 10.15AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 10.50AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 12 PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 12.30PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 11.25AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
29.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
29.11.06 11AM 20,000/-
29.11.06 12PM 20,000/-
29.11.06 2PM 20,000/-
29.11.06 4PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,00,000/-
30.11.06 10.30AM 20,000/-
30.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
30.11.06 12PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 1 PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 2PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 3.30PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,20,000/-
1.12.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 11.30AM 20,000/-
1.12.06 11 AM 20,000/-
1.12.06 2.50PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 4.20PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 3.50PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
Grand Total 7,00,000/-
6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that photocopies of above said 35 cash
payments vouchers are self made, does not indicate the exact name of
the recipient of cash payment and complete address identifying the
authenticity of the recipient with regard to real estate transactions
claimed for concerned plots bearing Khasra No.145/8,
8-0/9.8-0/12,8-0/13, 8-0/18,8-0/19,8-0. Nothing has been brought on
record by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that such self made
vouchers were produced before the A.O.. Also no business expediency
has been proved before the ld. CIT(A) as to whether such payments are
covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Moreover, banking
facilities are duly available at Verka, Tehsil Baba Bakala, Amritsar
District, has not been disputed by the assessee at any stage. Ld.
CIT(A), therefore, rejected the contentions of the assessee and
accordingly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl, CA
raised the additional ground that purchases made of the lands by the
assessee are on Power of Attorney system and the purchase deed had not
been executed. Therefore, such purchases though made in cash and lands
so purchased, sold in cash are not covered under the provisions of
section 40A(3) of the Act and provisions of section 2(47) with regard
to definition of transfer are not applicable while dealing with the
said provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.
7.1 It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl,
CA that though the documents executed contain all the documents like
agreement to sell, specific power of attorney, general power of
attorney, receipts and having taken possession of land on one hand on
payment of the purchase consideration to the seller, the assessee had
enjoined the property is not in dispute. The land has been sold again
on the same system of documents as above said power of attorney
system. Mr. Padam Bahl, therefore, prayed to delete the disallowance
confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
7.2 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also argued with regard to the
payments of vouchers produced before the ld. CIT(A) which have been
shown to have been made at different times on the same date. No
evidence or any record has been produced before the ld. CIT(A) or even
before us. Still, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl
claimed that the payments of Rs.20,000/- at different hours were paid
on the same date and does not come under the provisions of section
40A(3) of the Act. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa
High Court in the case of CIT v. Aloo Supply & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680
and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT
v. Bal Krishan Jagdish Chand [2007] 164 Taxman 459.
8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the
authorities below.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the
case. First of all, we will deal with the additional ground raised by
the assessee. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that
purchases of the land payment for which was made in cash for which
possession has been taken and the documents which are necessary like
agreement to sell, power of attorney, general power of attorney and
other documents are also signed by the seller in lieu of the total
consideration paid to the seller. The said property is held as stock
in trade is not under dispute. The said property is enjoined for some
time by the assessee is also not under dispute. The said property is
sold on the power of attorney system and again all the documents are
signed by the seller i.e. the assessee and possession given to the
buyer completely in lieu of consideration received is also not under
dispute. The only dispute raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee
is that the said lands are not registered by the proper purchase deed
and therefore, provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not
attracted. The definition of section 2(47) is not applicable to
section 40A(3) of the Act.
10. In this regard, we are of the view that there is no dispute to the
fact that the assessee has incurred the expenditure on purchase of the
land as stock-in-trade for which payments have been paid otherwise
than account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The assessee
has also claimed that the said expenditure in the profit & loss
account is also not under dispute. As regards the sale of the said
property held as stock in trade has been sold and the assessee has
received the consideration otherwise than by account payee cheque or
account payee bank draft. The assessee after incurring expenditure on
buying the property as stock in trade as per agreement to sell, power
of attorney and other documents alongwith cash receipts as receipt of
total consideration in lieu of the property sold by the seller is
directly covered under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act
since the assessee had made the payments otherwise than by account
payee cheque or account payee bank draft which exceeds Rs.20,000/-
Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee
are not found convincing and are not according to the provisions
contained in section 40A(3) of the Act, though the provisions of
section 2(47) of the Act are not may or may not be applicable in the
present case. Therefore, having declared purchases and the sales of
the impugned property in the profit & loss account which is not under
dispute and our findings hereinabove, the additional ground raised by
the assessee is dismissed.
11. As regards the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more, the assessee has
not substantiated his claim that the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more
with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.20,000/- or less before
the AO. It is also not on record whether such claim was actually made
before the AO or not. With regard to the claim before the ld. CIT(A),
all the vouchers are self made vouchers and without any authenticity
of the name and complete address of the recipient. From the claim of
the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the payments are claimed to have
been made on different hours on the same day and accordingly on
different dates. Payments of Rs.20,000/- claimed to have been made at
different hours on the same day is nothing but a self-made story to
come out of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, which is
without any evidence and cogent explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) has
rightly not accepted such claim of the assessee, which on the face of
it is a false claim and is without any evidence or any cogent
explanation. Nothing has been brought on record as the assessee is
covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly
rejected the claim of the assessee. We find no infirmity in his order.
Accordingly, all the grounds of the assessee including the additional
ground are dismissed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.182(Asr)/2012
is dismissed.
--
Regards,
*Pawan Singla*
*BA (Hon's), LLB*
*Audit Officer*
made in parts and each payment was below Rs. 20,000 but material
submitted did not indicate correct names and addresses of recipients,
cash payment under section 40A(3) be disallowed
■■■
[2013] 31 taxmann.com 229 (Amritsar - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH
Raman Mahajan, HUF
v.
Income-tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Amritsar*
H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND B.P. Jain, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT Appeal No. 182 (Asr.) of 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08]
JANUARY 22, 2013
Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance -
Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits [Purchase Consideration] -
Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee, engaged in realty business,
purchased a property by making cash payment - It claimed that payments
were made in parts and each payment was either less than or of Rs
20,000 - As per assessee's version, those payments were made at
different hours of same day and on different dates - However, vouchers
presented for this purpose did not indicate correct names and
addresses of recipients and were without any cogent evidence - Whether
since vouchers were self-made to come out of clutches of section
40A(3) and assessee had failed to substantiate its claim, disallowance
made by Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) was justified - Held,
yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue]
FACTS
Facts
• The assessee, engaged in realty business, purchased a property.
• The payment to purchase the property was made otherwise than by
an account payee cheque or demand draft and it exceeded the limit of
Rs. 20,000.
• Since there was neither any business exigency nor any reasonable
cause was shown, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under section
40A(3).
• The assessee submitted that each payment was less than or of Rs.
20,000 and made at different hours of a same day.
• The Commissioner (Appeals) found that vouchers did not indicate
the exact name of the recipients and complete addresses identifying
the authenticity of the recipients. Accordingly he confirmed the
disallowance.
Arguments of assessee
• Purchases made of the lands by the assessee were on power of
attorney system and the purchase deed had not been executed.
Therefore, such purchases though made in cash and lands so purchased
sold in cash were not covered under the provisions of section 40A(3).
Issue involved
• Whether where assessee made payments not by A/c payee cheque or
draft, provisions of section 40A(3) were attracted though property was
sold on power of attorney system not by registered purchase deed.?
HELD
Payment exceeding limit otherwise than by A/c payee cheque entails
applicability of section 40A(3)
• As regards the sale of the property held as stock-in-trade has
been sold and the assessee has received the consideration otherwise
than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, the assessee
after incurring expenditure on buying the property as stock-in-trade
as per agreement to sell, power of attorney and other documents
alongwith cash receipts as receipt of total consideration in lieu of
the property sold by the seller is directly covered under the
provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act since the assessee had made
the payments otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee
bank draft which exceeds Rs. 20,000. [Para 10]
Assessee could not substantiate its claim
• The assessee has not substantiated his claim that the payments of
Rs.20,000 or more with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.
20,000 or less before the Assessing Officer. It is also not on record
whether such claim was actually made before the Assessing Officer or
not. With regard to the claim before the Commissioner (Appeals), all
the vouchers are self-made vouchers and without any authenticity of
the name and complete address of the recipient.
• From the claim of the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals),
the payments are claimed to have been made on different hours on the
same day and accordingly on different dates.
• Payments of Rs. 20,000 claimed to have been made at different
hours on the same day is nothing but a self-made story to come out of
the provisions of section 40A(3), which is without any evidence and
cogent explanation. [Para 11]
Conclusion
• Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly not accepted such claim of the
assessee, which on the face of it is a false claim and is without any
evidence or any cogent explanation. Nothing has been brought on record
to show the assessee is covered under rule 6DD of the Income-tax
Rules, 1962. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the claim of the
assessee. [Para 11]
CASES REFERRED TO
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 TIR 383 (SC) (para
3), CIT v. Aloo Supply & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680 (Ori.) and CIT v. Bal
Krishan Jagdish Chand [2007] 164 Taxman 459 (Punj. & Har.) (para 7).
Padam Bahl for the Appellant. R.L. Chhanalia for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per Bench : This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the
CIT(A), Amritsar, dated 12.03.2009 relating to assessment year
2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming
the addition of Rs.2,33,332/- made by Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3),
Amritsar on account of disallowance for expenditure of Rs.11,66,662/-
@ 20% on the alleged payments made in violation of provisions of Sec.
40(A)(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has failed to appreciate that the
ITO Ward 4(3), had failed to discharge the onus to prove that cash
payments of Rs.11,66,662/- were made by the assessee at one time and
not as claimed by the assessee.
3. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar has failed to appreciate the real
import of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and has ignored
the fact that the payment were made bonafide and stood duly confirmed
by the receiver in the purchase deed."
2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl, CA has also
raised additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:
"1. That the ld. CIT(A), Amritsar and the ld. A.O. have both failed to
appreciate that the assessee had acquired & disposed the lands under
Power of Attorney & had not executed any purchase deed entailing the
provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
3. The additional ground is admitted since the matter goes deep into
the root of the matter and is a legal ground in view of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.
Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383.
4. The brief facts in the grounds of the assessee and the additional
ground of the assessee are that the assessee derives business income
from dealings in real estate i.e. from sale and purchase of land and
selling of land/plots after development. The AO found that the
assessee has incurred expenditure by making cash payment exceeding Rs.
20,000/- other than by an account payee bank cheque or account payee
bank demand draft to the following persons:
Sl. Name of the party(S/Shri) Date Amt (in (Rs)
1 Sawinder Singh S/o Dharan Singh, Village Verka, Tehsil Verka,
Amritsar. 28.07.2007 7,00,000/-
2. Kuldip Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Rai, Butter Kala, Tehsil Baba Bakala,
Amritsar. 30.3.2007 4,66,662/-
Total 11,66,662/-
The assessee was given show cause notice for which the assessee filed
its written reply dated 18.12.2009. The AO sought direction under
section 144A from his Range Head, who had directed that it is a fit
case where the assessee has violated provisions of section 40A(3) by
making cash purchases exceeding Rs.20,000/- other than by way of
crossed cheque/demand draft in respect of the above cited instances
when there was neither any business exigency nor any cause or reason
provided under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO
accordingly made disallowance of Rs.2,33,332/- @ 20% of such cash
purchases amounting to Rs.11,66,662/-.
5. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he has made cash
payment of each amount of Rs.20,000/-, which for the sake of clarity
is reproduced as under:
Date Time Amount in (Rs.)
24.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
24.11.06 12AM 20,000/-
24.11.06 3PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 60,000/-
27.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
27.11.06 10.30AM 20,000/-
27.11.06 12.15PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 3.30PM 20,000/-
27.11.06 4.15PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
28.11.06 10.15AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 10.50AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 12 PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 12.30PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 11.25AM 20,000/-
28.11.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
28.11.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
29.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
29.11.06 11AM 20,000/-
29.11.06 12PM 20,000/-
29.11.06 2PM 20,000/-
29.11.06 4PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,00,000/-
30.11.06 10.30AM 20,000/-
30.11.06 10AM 20,000/-
30.11.06 12PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 1 PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 2PM 20,000/-
30.11.06 3.30PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,20,000/-
1.12.06 1.30PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 11.30AM 20,000/-
1.12.06 11 AM 20,000/-
1.12.06 2.50PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 2.30PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 4.20PM 20,000/-
1.12.06 3.50PM 20,000/-
Sub-total of a day 1,40,000/-
Grand Total 7,00,000/-
6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that photocopies of above said 35 cash
payments vouchers are self made, does not indicate the exact name of
the recipient of cash payment and complete address identifying the
authenticity of the recipient with regard to real estate transactions
claimed for concerned plots bearing Khasra No.145/8,
8-0/9.8-0/12,8-0/13, 8-0/18,8-0/19,8-0. Nothing has been brought on
record by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that such self made
vouchers were produced before the A.O.. Also no business expediency
has been proved before the ld. CIT(A) as to whether such payments are
covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Moreover, banking
facilities are duly available at Verka, Tehsil Baba Bakala, Amritsar
District, has not been disputed by the assessee at any stage. Ld.
CIT(A), therefore, rejected the contentions of the assessee and
accordingly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl, CA
raised the additional ground that purchases made of the lands by the
assessee are on Power of Attorney system and the purchase deed had not
been executed. Therefore, such purchases though made in cash and lands
so purchased, sold in cash are not covered under the provisions of
section 40A(3) of the Act and provisions of section 2(47) with regard
to definition of transfer are not applicable while dealing with the
said provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act.
7.1 It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl,
CA that though the documents executed contain all the documents like
agreement to sell, specific power of attorney, general power of
attorney, receipts and having taken possession of land on one hand on
payment of the purchase consideration to the seller, the assessee had
enjoined the property is not in dispute. The land has been sold again
on the same system of documents as above said power of attorney
system. Mr. Padam Bahl, therefore, prayed to delete the disallowance
confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
7.2 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also argued with regard to the
payments of vouchers produced before the ld. CIT(A) which have been
shown to have been made at different times on the same date. No
evidence or any record has been produced before the ld. CIT(A) or even
before us. Still, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Padam Bahl
claimed that the payments of Rs.20,000/- at different hours were paid
on the same date and does not come under the provisions of section
40A(3) of the Act. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa
High Court in the case of CIT v. Aloo Supply & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 680
and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT
v. Bal Krishan Jagdish Chand [2007] 164 Taxman 459.
8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the
authorities below.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the
case. First of all, we will deal with the additional ground raised by
the assessee. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that
purchases of the land payment for which was made in cash for which
possession has been taken and the documents which are necessary like
agreement to sell, power of attorney, general power of attorney and
other documents are also signed by the seller in lieu of the total
consideration paid to the seller. The said property is held as stock
in trade is not under dispute. The said property is enjoined for some
time by the assessee is also not under dispute. The said property is
sold on the power of attorney system and again all the documents are
signed by the seller i.e. the assessee and possession given to the
buyer completely in lieu of consideration received is also not under
dispute. The only dispute raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee
is that the said lands are not registered by the proper purchase deed
and therefore, provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not
attracted. The definition of section 2(47) is not applicable to
section 40A(3) of the Act.
10. In this regard, we are of the view that there is no dispute to the
fact that the assessee has incurred the expenditure on purchase of the
land as stock-in-trade for which payments have been paid otherwise
than account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The assessee
has also claimed that the said expenditure in the profit & loss
account is also not under dispute. As regards the sale of the said
property held as stock in trade has been sold and the assessee has
received the consideration otherwise than by account payee cheque or
account payee bank draft. The assessee after incurring expenditure on
buying the property as stock in trade as per agreement to sell, power
of attorney and other documents alongwith cash receipts as receipt of
total consideration in lieu of the property sold by the seller is
directly covered under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act
since the assessee had made the payments otherwise than by account
payee cheque or account payee bank draft which exceeds Rs.20,000/-
Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the assessee
are not found convincing and are not according to the provisions
contained in section 40A(3) of the Act, though the provisions of
section 2(47) of the Act are not may or may not be applicable in the
present case. Therefore, having declared purchases and the sales of
the impugned property in the profit & loss account which is not under
dispute and our findings hereinabove, the additional ground raised by
the assessee is dismissed.
11. As regards the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more, the assessee has
not substantiated his claim that the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more
with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.20,000/- or less before
the AO. It is also not on record whether such claim was actually made
before the AO or not. With regard to the claim before the ld. CIT(A),
all the vouchers are self made vouchers and without any authenticity
of the name and complete address of the recipient. From the claim of
the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the payments are claimed to have
been made on different hours on the same day and accordingly on
different dates. Payments of Rs.20,000/- claimed to have been made at
different hours on the same day is nothing but a self-made story to
come out of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, which is
without any evidence and cogent explanation. The Ld. CIT(A) has
rightly not accepted such claim of the assessee, which on the face of
it is a false claim and is without any evidence or any cogent
explanation. Nothing has been brought on record as the assessee is
covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly
rejected the claim of the assessee. We find no infirmity in his order.
Accordingly, all the grounds of the assessee including the additional
ground are dismissed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.182(Asr)/2012
is dismissed.
--
Regards,
*Pawan Singla*
*BA (Hon's), LLB*
*Audit Officer*
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: CA. VMV SUBBA RAO <vmvsrao@gmail.com>
To: Kanigalla <kanigalla@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: High Court on Sec 40(a)(ia)
From: CA. VMV SUBBA RAO <vmvsrao@gmail.com>
To: Kanigalla <kanigalla@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: High Court on Sec 40(a)(ia)
High Court on Amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2008, is retrospectively effective from 1-4-2005
--
--
Best Wishes
CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO
Chartered Accountant
Door No.24-2-1885,
I Floor, Flat No.5,
Siddivinayaka Residency, I Cross,
Central Avenue, MSR Nagar,
Magunta Layout,
Nellore-524 003
Andhra Pradesh
India
Mobile:+91 - 0 9390221100
+91 - 0 9440278412
e-Mail: vmvsr@rediffmail.com
vmvsr@yahoo.co.uk
http://pdicai.org/MyPage/203038.aspx
CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO
Chartered Accountant
Door No.24-2-1885,
I Floor, Flat No.5,
Siddivinayaka Residency, I Cross,
Central Avenue, MSR Nagar,
Magunta Layout,
Nellore-524 003
Andhra Pradesh
India
Mobile:+91 - 0 9390221100
+91 - 0 9440278412
e-Mail: vmvsr@rediffmail.com
vmvsr@yahoo.co.uk
http://pdicai.org/MyPage/203038.aspx
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment