IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\nORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
\nINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2017<\/p>\n
Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals
\nCorporation Limited … Appellant
\nVs.
\nAddl CIT, Range3(
\n1) … Respondent<\/p>\n
WITH
\nNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1268 OF 2017
\nIN
\nINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2017<\/p>\n
Shri Suparas D Jain \u2026 Applicant
\n[Associate Vice President
\n(Corporate Finance)]
\n[For Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals
\nCorporation Limited
\nIn the matter between:
\nDeepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals … Appellant
\nCorporation Limited
\nVs.
\nAddl CIT, Range3(
\n1) … Respondent
\n……
\nMr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a\/w Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the
\nAppellant in Appeal and for the Applicant in Notice of Motion.
\nMr. Tejveer Singh for the Respondent in both, the Appeal and the
\nNotice of Motion.
\n……
\nCORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
\nSMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
\nDATE : AUGUST 21, 2017.
\n::: Uploaded on – 23\/08\/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 29\/01\/2019 15:24:03 :::
\nvikrant 2\/3 17ITXA7852017.
\nodt
\nP.C. :<\/p>\n
1. Heard both sides. Perused the Application\/Notice of Motion
\nrequesting an out of turn hearing for admission of this Appeal.<\/p>\n
2. For the reasons set out in the affidavitinsupport,
\nwe grant
\nthe request of the appellantassessee
\nand take up the Appeal for
\nadmission forthwith.<\/p>\n
3. Prima facie, the show cause notices, copies of which are at
\npages 174 and 176 of the paper book, did not indicate what is the
\nlapse or act attributable to the assessee, for which the Revenue
\nproposes a penalty.<\/p>\n
4. Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 271 of the Income
\nTax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), which alone are relevant for
\nthis case, are clear. Section 271 (1) Clauses (c) and (d) are very
\nclear and it would have to be indicated as to what is the act
\nattributale, whether it is concealment of the particulars of income
\nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the
\nparticulars of the fringe benefits or furnishing inaccurate
\nparticulars of such fringe benefits or failure to comply with the
\nnotices as are spelt out by Clause (b) of Subsection
\n(1) of Section
\n271 of the IT Act. The satisfaction has to be clearly spelt out and
\nwhich we do not think is spelt out from the present show cause
\nnotices<\/p>\n
5. Hence the Appeal raises the following questions of law. It is
\nadmitted on the following substantial questions of law:<\/p>\n
i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
\nthe case and in law, the Tribunal was right in
\napproving penalty of Rs.26,87,196\/under
\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Act?<\/p>\n
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
\nthe case and in law, was justified in not
\nappreciating that the Assessing Officer ought to
\nhave made his mind whether initiation of penalty
\nis on account of furnishing of inaccurate
\nparticulars or concealment of income in
\naccordance with the ratio laid down in the
\ndecision of this Honourable Court in CIT v.
\nSamson Perinchery 392 ITR 4?<\/p>\n
6. Heard both sides on the point of stay.<\/p>\n
7. Once we have admitted the Appeal on substantial questions
\nof law, we do not think that there is any justification for the
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle8(
\n1) to
\nthreaten the appellant\/applicant with any prosecution. Even if
\nsuch prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the
\npendency of this Appeal. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in
\nterms of prayer clause (a).
\n(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)<\/p>\n