Indian Ex-Service League(W.B.), Kolkata V. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1098/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6147 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 69; 27

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1098 / KOL / 20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 CIVTECT INDIA PVT. LTD. SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1 GIBSON LANE, 2 ND FLOOR, SUITE-213, KOLKATA-700 069 [ PAN NO.AABCC 3760 B ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SIDDHARTH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S. DASGUPTA, ADDL.CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 28-06-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-07-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARISES AGAINST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 18.08.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.1823/CIT(A)-4/2014-15, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENALTY OF 2,04,180 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT ASSESSEES INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 193 DAYS DELAY IN FLING. IT HAS PLACED ON RECORD ITS CO NDONATION PETITION DATED 04.06.2018 PLEADING THEREIN THAT ITS OFFICE STAFF H AD INADVERTENTLY MIXED THE ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 2 INSTANT CASE FILE WITH SIMILAR OTHER RECORDS. ALL T HESE SOLEMN AVERMENTS DULY SUPPORTED BY ASSESSEES PRACTICING CAS AFFIDAVIT D ATED 27.06.2018 HAVE GONE UNREBUTTED FROM THE REVENUE SIDE. IT IS THEREFORE C LEAR THAT ASSESSEES DELAY IN FILING OF INSTANT APPEAL IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED. 3. WE COME TO ABOVE SOLE ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF IM PUGNED PENALTY AMOUNTING TO 2,04,180/- IMPOSED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES PE RTAINING TO ALLEGED UNDISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING T O 6,60,776/- ON ASSESSEES PART. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE SAID ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.11.2014 PASSE D U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THER EAFTER TREATED IT AS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME SINCE THE AMOUNT IS CONCERNED SAW LIGHT OF THE DAY ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE AP PEARS TO HAVE PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DID NOT SPEC IFY THE RELEVANT CHARGE AS TO WHETHER IT FAILED IN FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) HOLDS BOTH THE AB OVE LIMBS ARE ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT TAXPAYERS ACT AND CONDUCT. THIS WHA T LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED PENALTY. LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING ASSESSEE BEFORE US QUOTES THE RELEVANT PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NO TICE DATED 12.11.2014 NOT SPECIFYING AS TO WHETHER IT HAD CONCEALED THE RELEV ANT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREON. HE RELIES ON THIS TRIBUNALS CO- ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA 687/KOL/2016 DCIT VS. M/S JAI LOKNATH OIL EXTRACTION (P) LTD. DECIDED ON 13.12.2017 ADJUDICAT ING THE VERY ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PARA 6 TO 8 REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON B Y THE LD.DR. WE FIND THE SAME SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FI LED BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JE ETMAL CHORARIA IN ITA 956/KOL/16 FOR AY 2010-11, WHEREIN THE COOR DINATE BENCH ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 3 ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FACTS IN THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR AND PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE RESPECTIV E HONBLE HIGH COURTS AT BOMBAY AND PATNA AND PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING SUPRA BY TAKING SUPPO RT OF THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 (SC). WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONING OF THE IN ITS ORDER DT:01-12-2017 OF COORDINATE BENCH IN T HE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED FOR RE ADY REFERENCE: 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CAL CUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS . CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC. 271 DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FROM THE O RDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE AO OR BY HIS O VERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QU ESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SP ECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 O F THE ACT. THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3 830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATED 21.3.2017; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBA I, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT VIZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHALYA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A C OPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATI O LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED BEFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DOES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A PARTICULA R FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE A SSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURA L JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA . FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERN ED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE I S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE L ANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BE NCH IN THE ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 4 CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLL OW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIA NCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SU FFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEE T AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WAS DELETED FOR SO MANY REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFOR E THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO. 5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TR IBUNAL HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A STAN DARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STRUCK OFF NOR DELETED. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SU RE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED IN ACCURATE DETAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE R EQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR SECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAG UE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLICATION O F MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HE LD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THE APPEAL , THE SAID FINDING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED O N A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. S INCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INI TIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NOLONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLAT E AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGAL SANCTUM . THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SET-ASIDE BY IT S ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBL E HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE S AID APPEAL VIZ., 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) IN THE PRINTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WH ETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALM ENT OF ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 5 INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOV ING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSI STANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CI T DATED 22.8.2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERAT ED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FURNISHED IN THE WRITT EN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M.GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MUM BAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE I NITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO M ENTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, TH AT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CAS E THERE IS NO WHISPHER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPE CT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECIS ION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (S UPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT T HE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE IN TENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A RE ADING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITI ATED. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE L ANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENC HES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE B OMBAY ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 6 HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE H AVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS A RE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABL E TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER T O FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETH ER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 27 4 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION O F PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED T O IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE T HEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 7.WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE DT. 27-03-2014 ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE OF OFFENCE COMM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ WHETHER HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE NCE THE SAID NOTICE IS TO BE HELD AS DEFECTIVE. 8. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRE D A SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT WHI CH WAS DISMISSED IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 5.8.2016 BY OB SERVING AS UNDER:- UPON HEARING THE COUNSEL, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW ING ORDER DELAY CONDONED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE SPE CIAL LEAVE PETITION IS , ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. PENDING APPLICATION, IF ANY, STANDS DISPOSED OF. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES ONLY ARGUM ENT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DULY CLARIFIED THAT THE IMPUGNED P ENALTY HAD BEEN INITIATED FOR PROCESSING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES ABOVE PLEA SINCE IT IS ONLY THE RELEVANT NOTICE ISS UED U/S. 274 OF THE ACT THAT ITA NO.1098/KOL/2018 A.Y. 20 12-13 CIVECT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOL. PAGE 7 CARRIES PRIME SIGNIFICANCE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS IN QUESTION. WE THEREFORE ACCEPT ASSESSEES ARGUMENT ON MERITS. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 18/ 07/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 18 / 07 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-CIVTECT INDIA PVT. LTD., SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1 GIBSON LANE, 2 ND FL, SUIT-213, KOLKTA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,