Excel for
Chartered Accountants

Karnataka High Court has given a detailed judgment on the scope of the provisions of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. One of the issue before the Court was related to deeming provisions u/s 271((1B) regarding recording of the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer before imposition of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Case Details:
ITA-2564, 2565/2005
1. CIT,  2. ITO (Appellant) vs M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Respondent)
Date of Judgment: 13-12-2012

Court’s Observations:
The Court deliberated on the various aspects of the section in quite details. The Court ruled that the satisfaction should be that assessee has concealed or furnished inaccurate particular of income and even in the absence of those expressed words or findings recorded in the Assessment proceedings, if a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings is mentioned, it constitutes satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The detailed observations of the Court were as under:

DEEMING PROVISION
48. As the opening words of Explanation 1 makes it clear where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false or offers an explanation which is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide, then the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Therefore, it is clear that aforesaid instances by itself do not constitute concealment. The Assessing Officers were just writing at the end of the assessment order that penalty proceedings are initiated or something to the effect. The Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercials has held that such a note alone in the assessment order does not satisfy the requirement of assuming jurisdiction in law in respect of the initiation of penalty proceedings. The satisfaction should be in the assessment order. The said view was also approved by the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of RAMPUR ENGINEERING reported in 309 ITR 143. The said view has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of DILIP SHROFF reported in 291 ITR 591. That is the view the courts have consistently taken. After taking note of the judicial pronouncements in this regard, the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under:

“271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-Section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).”

49. By the aforesaid deeming provision a legal fiction is created. When the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings such order shall deem to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings under sub-clause (c) of Section 271 of the Act. As the language of Section 271 makes it clear before a direction is issued to pay penalty, the person issuing the direction must be satisfied about the condition mentioned in clause (c) of Section 271(1). The question is, whether such satisfaction should be in writing. As the satisfaction has to be in the course of any proceedings and it is at the time of computation of the total income of any person and as it results in an assessment order which has to be mandatorily in writing, the satisfaction should be found in the said order.The existence of these facts is a condition precedent for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. This provision is attracted once in any such assessment orders, a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1) is made. Thereby, it means even if the order does not contain a specific finding that the assessee has concealed income or he is deemed to have concealed income because of the existence of facts which are set out in Explanation 1, if a mere direction to initiate penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1) is found in the said order, by legal fiction, it shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings under said clause (c). The said provision came up for interpretation by the Delhi High Court in the case of MADHUSHREE GUPTA reported in 317 ITR 107, wherein the Delhi High Court held that the satisfaction should be discernable in the assessment order. Position post amendment is not in much variance with pre amendment. They held that provisions will fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution if the same is not read in the manner it has read and in fact has read down the provisions to hold it Constitutional. Therefore according to Delhi High Court, in post amendment and pre amendment there is not much difference and the satisfaction is required to arrived in the course of assessment proceedings and should be discernable in the assessment order. Therefore, this provision makes it abundantly clear that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer before initiation of penalty proceedings is a must. The satisfaction should be that he has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particular of such income and even in the absence of those expressed words or findings recorded in the Assessment proceedings, if a direction as aforesaid is mentioned, it constitutes satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.

DIRECTION
50. A reading of Section clearly indicates that the assessment order should contain a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. The meaning of the word direction is of importance. Merely saying that penalty proceedings are being initiated will not satisfy the requirement. The direction to initiate proceedings should be clear and not be ambiguous. It is well settled law that fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly and more so the deeming provisions by way of legal fiction are to be construed more strictly. They have to be interpreted only for the said issue for which it has deemed and the manner in which the deeming has been contemplated to be restricted in the manner sought to be deemed. As the words used in the legal fiction or the deeming provisions of Section 271(1B) is Direction, it is imperative that the assessment order contains a direction.

Use of the phrases like (a) penalty proceedings are being initiated separately and (b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word ‘direction’ has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of RAJENDRANATH reported in 120 ITR pg.14, where it has been held that in any event whatever else it may amount to, on its very terms the observation that the ITO is free to take action, to assess the excess in the hand of the coowners cannot be described as a direction. A direction by a statutory authority is in the nature of an order requiring positive compliance. When it is left to the option and discretion of the ITO whether or not take action, it cannot be described as a direction.

51. Therefore, it is settled law that in the absence of the existence of these conditions in the assessment order penalty proceedings could not be proceeded with. The proceedings which are initiated contrary to the said legal position are liable to be set aside.

WHEN DEEMING PROVISION NOT APPLICABLE
52. Sub-section (1)(B) only deals with satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. However, under the scheme of Section 271, the persons who are authorised to compute income as well as initiate the proceedings or the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Appeals or Commissioner in the course of revisional jurisdiction, Explanation 1 applies to all these three Officers whereas the deeming provision (1)(B) refers only to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, if an order of assessment is passed by Commissioner of Appeals or Commissioner in the course of the said proceedings, if they are satisfied that there is any concealment of particulars of his income or he has furnished inaccurate particular of income the said satisfaction must be expressly stated in the said order. If that is not stated, at least, the order should state what is mentioned in Explanation 1. It is only if those facts are set out in the order, then the deeming provision in Explanation 1 applies and the concealment of income could be presumed and then they are entitled to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271. If the said order do not disclose the facts set out in Explanation 1, they are not entitled to the benefit of deeming provision contained in provision (1)(B). The said deeming provision is confined only to the Assessing Officer.

53. From these discussion, it is clear that condition precedent for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) is existence of condition referred to in the said section. The person initiating penalty proceedings should be satisfied about the existence of said conditions which should be reflected in the assessment orders passed by them. In a given case, after appreciating the entire records, the Officer passing the order may categorically state that he is satisfied that the assessee has concealed income. Once such a finding is recorded that is sufficient to initiate penalty proceedings. Assuming such a categorical finding is not recorded in the order, at least, he has to record facts as contemplated in Explanation-1. If these facts are discernible from the assessment order, the deeming clause in Explanation 1 is attracted and the income is deemed to have been concealed. That gives the jurisdiction to the Officer passing the order to initiate the penalty proceedings. If the Officer passing the assessment order is the Assessment Officer, in the said order, the aforesaid facts are not discernible, at least he must direct initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Then Section (1)(B) is attracted and these conditions deemed to exist which confers jurisdiction on him to initiate penalty proceedings. Section (1)(B) has no application to an order passed by Commissioner of Appeals or Commissioner.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Karnataka HC-In Assessment Order, direction to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) constitutes satisfaction of the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1B) | 29-08-2015 |