Shri Pralay Pal, Jamshedpur V. ACIT, Jamshedpur

ITA 117/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9976 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHURY ORAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODAR DEVESH PODAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.117 /RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 SHRI PRALAY PAL, D 1/12, HUDCO, TELCO COLONY, JAMSHEDPUR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, JAMSHEDPUR PAN/GIR NO. ADBPP 9800 H (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : S/ SHRI S.K.PODAR /DEVESH PODAR , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHURY ORAM , DR DATE OF HEARING : 8 /12/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 /12/ 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - JAMSHDPUR , DATED 27.11.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR . 2. THE SO L E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.56,285/ - U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143( 3) OF THE ACT DATED 13.9.2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF 2 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 RS.1,82,146/ ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF NSC OF RS.1,64,695/ - AND SAVING BANK INTEREST OF RS.4351/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.1,82,146/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.56,285/ - FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 5. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEFORE ME, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOO K, WHEREIN, AT PAGE 5 PLACED IS A COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S OBSERVED AS UNDER: WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 7. HENCE, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF M IND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S.271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATRACHARYA VS ACIT (ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07) ORDER DATED 6.11.2015, WHEREIN, THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS ARE RELIED UPON: 3 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 I ) CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KAR) II ) MANU ENGINEERING , 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) III ) VIRGO MARKETING , 171` TAXMAN 156. 8. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 8, 81. & 82 HELD AS UNDER: 8. THE NEXT ARGUMENT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT WHICH IS IN A PRINTED FORM DOES NOT STRIKE OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED ON THE FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR 'CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH I NCOME'. ON THIS ASPECT WE FIND THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT THE AO HAS NOT STRUCK OUT THE IRRELEVANT PART. IT IS THEREFORE NOT SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME' OR 'CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. 8.1 THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KARN), HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT CERTAIN PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SECTION 271 A RE GIVEN WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FIND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY IN ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AFORESAID DECISION WILL SQ UARELY APPLY AND ALL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY HAVE TO BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 8.2 THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER 4 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER W HICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION - 1 OR IN EXPLANAT ION - 1 (B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE, IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTE ND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271 (1)(C) DO NOT EXIS T AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FARM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIA L PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICAL LY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASICS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON T HE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, THAT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MU ST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM GUILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, 5 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AU THORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDI NGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND T HE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS IS N OT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED THE IMP OSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER O F PENALTY MUST BE DETERMINED W ITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION OF FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY I MPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH WHEN P ASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI LE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAL REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MAR KETING . REPORTED IN 171 TAXM AN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PRO FORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON - APPLICATION OF MIND.' THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE HON'BLE COURT WAS AS FOLLOWS: - 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1 )(C) IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. B ) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D ) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD B E DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVEN IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATIO N 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOULD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (L)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE COMMISSIONER. I ) THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. J ) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TAX AND INTEREST THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDE D BY AUTHORITIES IT HAS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 L ) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EX PLANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONA FIDE, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE AND AIL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION IB TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND W ITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIA TED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) _NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT S HOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME Q) ___ SENDIN G PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GRO UND _ MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) __ THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO P ENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO T HE ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN JAW. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THOUGH EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTE R 8 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9. THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE AS IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY IN ALL TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE HELD AS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY IMPOSED IS CANCELLED. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE CANCEL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. I FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, A SHO W CASE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT WAS ISS UED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H A S NOT STATED SPECIFICALLY W HETHER THE SHOW CAUSE IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THER E FORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATRACHARYA (SUPRA) , I HOLD THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS INVAL ID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS DELETED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 /12/2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - (N.S SAINI ) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI ; DATED 8 /12 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 9 ITA NO.117/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 2012 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : SHRI PRALAY PAL, D 1/12, HUDCO, TELCO COLONY, JAMSHEDPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, JAMSHEDPUR 3. THE CIT(A) JAMSHEDPUR 4. CIT , JAMSHEDPUR 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//