The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. Goa Coastal Resorts And Recreation Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-1111-64]

Citation 2019-LL-1111-64
Appellant Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru
Respondent Name Goa Coastal Resorts And Recreation Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/11/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income • concealment of income • application of mind • deletion of penalty • defective notice • satisfaction
Bot Summary: Ms. Razaq, learned Advocate for the appellant urges admission of this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 2 TXA 24 of 2019 i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied u/s. Ms Razaq, learned Advocate submits that in this case the revised returns filed by the respondents indicated that the disclosures were made only by piecemeal. Mr Rao, learned Advocate for the assessee points out that there is absolutely no finding as regards concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 is perused, it is apparent that the relevant portions have not been struck off. The impugned order are quite consistent by the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. The contention based upon MAK Data Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itself is defective and further, there is no 5 TXA 24 of 2019 finding or satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.


IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU ... Appellant Versus GOA COASTAL RESORTS AND RECREATION PVT. LTD. ... Respondent Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Advocate for appellant. Shri P. Rao, Advocate for respondent. Coram:- M. S. SONAK & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 11th November, 2019 ORAL ORDER : (Per M.S. Sonak,J) Heard Ms Razaq, learned Advocate for appellant and Shri. Rao, learned Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. Ms. Razaq, learned Advocate for appellant urges admission of this appeal on following substantial questions of law: 2 TXA 24 of 2019 i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Ms Razaq, learned Advocate submits that in this case revised returns filed by respondents indicated that disclosures were made only by piecemeal. Relying upon Mak Data (P.) Ltd v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax1, she submits that such disclosure does not relieve assessee of requirement of paying penalty. He submits that assessment order in present case makes reference to concealment and/or inaccurate particulars. In this view of matter, she submits that substantial questions of law as aforesaid will be arises and view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as ITAT in relation deletion of penalty, warrants interference. 4. Mr Rao, learned Advocate for assessee points out that there is absolutely no finding as regards concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He further points out that in notice issued to assessee on 30/09/2016, Deputy Commissioner had not even bothered to strike down relevant portion of printed form in order to indicate whether satisfaction is based 1 [(2013) 38 Taxman.com 448 (SC)] 3 TXA 24 of 2019 upon concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relies on Commissioner of Income Tax-11 v/s. Shri Samson Perinchery2 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. New Era Sova Mine3 to submit that on basis of such defective notice, award of penalty can never be sustained. 5. We have carefully examined record as well as duly considered rival contentions. Both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as ITAT have categorically held that in present case, there is no record of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee. This being sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, in absence of such petition, two authorities have quite correctly ordered dropping of penalty proceedings against petitioner. 6. Besides, we note that Division Bench of this Court in Samson(supra) as well as in New Era Sova Mine(supra) has held that notice which is issued to assessee must indicate whether Assessing Officer is satisfied that case of assessee 2 [(017) 392 ITR 4] 3 [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] 4 TXA 24 of 2019 involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If notice is issued in printed form, then, necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity nature of satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra), notices issued had not struck of portion which were inapplicable. From this, Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. In present case, as well if notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 33) is perused, it is apparent that relevant portions have not been struck off. This coupled with fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with impugned order. impugned order are quite consistent by law laid down in case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine(supra) and therefore, warrant no interference. 8. contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in peculiar facts of present case. notice in present case is itself is defective and further, there is no 5 TXA 24 of 2019 finding or satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. For aforesaid reasons, we hold that no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. M. S. SONAK, J. mv Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. Goa Coastal Resorts And Recreation Pvt. Ltd
Report Error