KPC Medical College & Hospital vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

(i) The argument that the satisfaction ought to have been recorded by the AO of the searched person and copy of such satisfaction should be available in the record of searched person is not acceptable because the AO of the searched person as well as of the assessee is a common authority. The same AO has jurisdiction over both the assessees. He has recorded the satisfaction for satisfying himself that money belonged to the assessee was found at the premises of the assessee. His action is being challenged that he has recorded the satisfaction while taking cases of the present assessee i.e. when he took cases of such other persons, whereas he should have recorded satisfaction in the capacity of AO of searched person. There is built-in fallacy in the arguments of the assessee. The fallacy became evident if the argument if tested by envisioning to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute that notice under section 153C was issued by the AO after recording the satisfaction extracted supra. The AO is the same AO who has jurisdiction over the searched person as well as the other person i.e. the assessee. Let us take a situation, the AO was examining the file of Shri Bhaskar Ghosh. On perusal of his statement recorded under section 132(4) coupled with the fact of cash found during the course of search and buttressed by the Managing Director (Finance) of the KPC Group of companies, visualized that cash belonged to the assessee, he immediately took a piece of paper and recorded his satisfaction that the money belongs to the assessee, therefore notice under section 153C is to be issued in the case of assessee. The question is, where this paper was placed by him? Whether in the order sheet entries of Shri Bhaskar Ghosh’s assessment proceedings; in a separate file or in cupboard available in his room. There is no dispute that this satisfaction was not recorded within the stages contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673. The attempt at the end of the assessee is that there should be a straight jacket system, whereby the satisfaction recorded even by the same AO then, that should be placed in the file of searched person and if it is placed in some other cupboard in his room by the AO then, there cannot be any satisfaction, we fail to appreciate that technical approach at the end of the assessee. The law does not require the manner and the procedure of keeping the files. The section only requires that a satisfaction be recorded and it should be during the period propounded by Hon’ble S.C. in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673, that has been recorded in the present case. The second scenario can also happen that seized material of KPC group might be kept in a common bundle, wrapped in a cloth where all the files are emanating from search and survey are being placed. If the above satisfaction note was found to be tagged with other file would it be held that no satisfaction was recorded. In our understanding the reply will be that satisfaction was recorded (Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT 289 ITR 341, Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 367 ITR 112 and CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673 followed)

(ii) The most important feature of section 271(1)(c) is deeming provisions regarding concealment of income. The section not only covered the situation in which the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars, in certain situation, even without there being anything to indicate so, statutory deeming fiction for concealment of income comes into play. This deeming fiction, by way of Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) postulates two situations; (a) first whether in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or CIT( Appeal); and, (b) where in respect of any fact, material to the computation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation and the assessee fails, to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that the assessee had disclosed all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of the total income. Under first situation, the deeming fiction would come to play if the assessee failed to give any explanation with respect to any fact material to the computation of total income or by action of the Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(Appeals) by giving a categorical finding to the effect that explanation given by the assessee is false. In the second situation, the deeming fiction would come to play by the failure of the assessee to substantiate his explanation in respect of any fact material to the computation of total income and in addition to this the assessee is not able to prove that such explanation was given bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of the total income have been disclosed by the assessee. These two situations provided in Explanation 1 appended to section 271(1)(c) makes it clear that that when this deeming fiction comes into play in the above two situations then the related addition or disallowance in computing the total income of the assessee for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. On examination of the facts, we find that firstly, there is no explanation at the end of assessee, why it has not disclosed these donations in the original return(s)? There is no bona fide in the alleged explanation of the assessee that it had received the money through account payee cheque and, therefore, harbored a belief that donations are genuine. This explanation is wholly for the sake of explanation. The assessee failed to spell out specific facts and circumstances or reason which operated in the minds of its managing director, finance while preparing the return and treating these donations as genuine. Looking to the facts of these five donors, no prudentman would, however, harbor a belief that such companies can give donation. It is pertinent to note that it cannot be a co-incidence or a chance that five companies managed by a common director, having assets of less than Rs.1 lac, not done any business but would give donations of Rs.33 crores. These circumstances in itself suggest a well designed scheme at the behest of the assessee, because it is the assessee who is ultimately getting the benefit. Therefore, there was no explanation at the end of assessee for not showing these donations as its income in the original return(s) or in the return(s) filed in response to notice under section 153C. The CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the penalty upon the assessee.