Shri S Krishna Prasad , Ballari V. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 1172/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5652 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B S BALACHANDRA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 27; 132; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2014-15 SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD, C-2, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUJATHA ARMS MFG. COMPANY, BENGALURU ROAD, BELLARI-583 101. PAN ADCPK 8481 E VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELGAVI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.S BALACHANDRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.N SIDDAPPAJI, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.10.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A), GULBARGA AND THEY RELAT E TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2014-15. THE APPEALS R ELATING TO AY 2008-09 TO 2012-13 ARE RELATED TO PENALTY LEVIED U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER TWO APPEALS RELATE TO THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY LEVIED IN ALL THE ABOVE SAID YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THESE APPEALS CHALLENGING THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A). ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 23 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN A FIRM NAMED M/S SUJATHA ARMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY. THE REVENUE CARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18-09-2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON MONEY LEND ING BUSINESS AND THE INCOME THEREFROM WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS ALSO OPERATING TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF HIS CHIL DREN. WHEN THESE MATERIALS WERE CONFRONTED, THE ASSESSEE AGREE D TO OFFER THE CREDITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT & INTEREST INCOME IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AS HIS INCOME IN VARIOUS YEARS. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO OFFERED RS.50.00 LAKHS AS HIS INVESTMENT IN MONEY L ENDING BUSINESS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILE D, YET HE AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IN VARIOU S YEARS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO ALSO MADE CERTAIN SMALL ADDITIONS IN VARIOUS YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2012-13 AND U/S 271AAB IN AY 2013-14 AND 2014-15. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY UNDE R THE ABOVE SAID SECTIONS IN ALL THE YEARS. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES SO LEVIED. 4. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO AY 2008-09 TO 2012-13, WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS LEVIED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS WELL AS IN ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 23 THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED HAS STATED THAT THE PENAL TY IS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, I.E., A PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED FOR BOTH THE CHARGES ON TH E SAME ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO WAS NOT C LEAR ABOUT THE CHARGE AND HENCE THE PENALTY ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH LD CIT(A), WHO REJECTED THE SAME WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS: - ..FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE POINT THA T THE AO HAS TO SPECIFY IN THE NOTICE ITSELF THAT THE PENALT Y IS LEVIABLE EITHER ON CONCEALMENT OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TH AT IN THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE AO HAD NOT SPEC IFIED FOR WHICH REASON OF THE TWO, I.E., CONCEALMENT OR FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THE PENALTY IS PROPOSED TO B E LEVIED. IN RESPECT OF THIS, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF TH E NOTICE U/S 271 DATED 30-11-12015 WHICH IS THE ENCLOSURE TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT DURING APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS. IN THE NOTICE THE PARAGRAPH TICK MARKED IS ** HAVE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PARAGRAPH RE-PRODUCED ABOVE WHICH IS PART OF THE NO TICE U/S 271 THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VAGUE IF THE WORD OR IS USED IN PLACE OF AND TO SEPARATE THE WORDS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME . HENCE THE ARGUMENT OF THE ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 23 APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF SPECIFICATION OF CONCEALME NT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH THE SUPPORT OF DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY I S NOT TENABLE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL FAILS ON THIS ACCOUNT. IT WAS PROBABLY PRESUMED THAT THE WORD OR EXISTED BETWEEN CONCEA LED PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW SO EXPRESS ED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISIONS REND ERED BY TRIBUNALS AND COURTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TWO TY PES OF CHARGES MENTIONED IN SEC. 271(1)(C), VIZ., CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME ARE TWO SEPARATE CHARGES AND HENCE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE IN ITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON BOTH THE CHARGES FOR THE ADDITIONS M ADE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED , MEANING THEREBY, HE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDERS PASSED BY HIM ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROC EEDINGS AND ALSO AGREED FOR FURTHER ADDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OF FERED ENTIRE CREDITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS HIS INCOME, W HILE HE COULD HAVE PRAYED FOR ADDITION OF ONLY PEAK CREDIT BALANC ES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN MONEY LENDING BUS INESS HAS ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 23 BEEN SURRENDERED ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY CO-OPERATED WITH THE AO IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT, ON MERITS ALSO, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 6. THE LD A.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS LEGAL CONTENTIONS MENTIONED ABOVE:- (A) CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY ( 359 ITR 565)(KAR) (B) SMT. JAYALAKSHMI VS. ITO (ITA NO.1056/BANG/201 8 DATED 30-04-2019) (C) THE DCIT VS. SHRI R ELANGOVAN (ITA NO.1199/CHNY/2017 DATED 05-04-2018). 7. THE LD D.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS SPECIFIED IN SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. REFERRING T O THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE (WHICH IS EXTRA CTED ABOVE), THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON' BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GIN NING FACTORY (SUPRA) SHALL APPLY ONLY IF THE WORD OR IS USED I N BETWEEN BOTH THE CHARGES. SINCE THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEE DINGS UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS, HE HAS USED THE WORD AND IN BETWEEN BO TH THE CHARGES. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AOS ACTION CANNO T BE FOUND FAULT WITH AND HENCE THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 23 8. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, VIZ., FOR CONCEA LING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE CHARGES MEN TIONED IN SEC.271(1)(C) CONVEY DIFFERENT MEANING. IT IS SO S TATED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.ASHOK PAI VS. CIT (2 92 ITR 11). HENCE ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WOULD FALL UNDER ANY ONE OF THE LIMBS SPECIFIED IN SEC.271(1)(C) AND NOT UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS. 9. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT T HE AO HAS TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE CHARGE UNDER WHICH HE HAS INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS. IF THERE IS LACK OF CLARITY ON THIS ASPECT, THEN TH E PENALTY ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, SINCE IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A CASE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATI ON OF MIND. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. JAYALAKSHMI (SUPRA) SUPPORT THIS LEGAL POSITION:- 8. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY DISPUTED ISSUE PRIMA FACIE IS IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CONT ENTION OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE PENALTY OR DER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND REFERRED TO PAGE 39 & 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) DATED 31.12.2007 IS ENCLOSED. ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE A T PAGE 40, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LEARNED AR, THE AO HAS INITI ATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BOTH FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 23 INCOME. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PENALTY PROCEED INGS ARE ATTRACTED ONLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS WELL ACCEPTED PROPOSITION THAT THE AFORESAID TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CARRY DIFFERENT MEANING AND THE AO SHOULD BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY IS BEING LEVIED. WHEN THE AO P ROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E, NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US, WE FOUND THAT THE AO HAS MA RKED THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS IMPERATIVE AND CLEAR THAT THE AO IS NOT SURE ON WHICH LIMB THE PENALTY I S BEING LEVIED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AND PASSING OF PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C), FOUND THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO AS HE HAS MARKED BOTH LIMBS OF NOTICE WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND CANCEL THE PENALTY ORDER DA TED 31.12.2007 AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 10. IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HAS, INT ER ALIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFI CALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., W HETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCO RRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 23 GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOUL D NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW; THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS T O MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PEN ALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE; TAKING UP OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOT HER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW; PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPO SITION OF PENALTY EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, THE Y ARE INDEPENDENT AND A SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDING S; THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INCOR RECT PARTICULARS WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY O F THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PE NALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED I NVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 11. THE FOREGOING DECISIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE CLEAR IN HIS MIND WHEN HE INITIATES PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH HE HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AO, IN THE INSTANT CASES, HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UN DER BOTH THE ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 23 LIMBS FOR THE SAME ADDITIONS. HENCE THERE WAS LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, AS HEL D BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OFFENDED AND NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASS ESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 12. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2012-13 AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE ABOVE SAID YEARS. 13. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP APPEALS FILED FOR AY 20013-14 AND 2014-15, WHEREIN PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAB OF THE A CT WAS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). 14. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS, IN THESE TWO YEARS, HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED U/S 271AAB OF THE A CT. HOWEVER, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICES PERTAINING TO PROVISIONS OF S EC.271(1)(C) AND IN THE NOTICES, HE HAS (A) TICK MARKED THE PORTION HAVE CONCEALED THE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME AND (B) STATED AT THE END OF THE NOTICE AS UNDER:- IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 23 BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFOR E ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271AAB. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271 (1)(C) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER HE HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OR SEC.271AAB, AS IS EVID ENT FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALT Y U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NOT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS USED THE EXPRESSION CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO TICK MA RKED CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE PENALTY NOTICE. ACCO RDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AND THE SAME WOULD VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS AS HELD BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNA THA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED PENALTY LEVIE D U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE O F THE DCIT VS. SHRI R ELANGOVAN (ITA NO.1199/CHNY/2017 DATED 05-04 -2018). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAB PRE SCRIBES THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PENALTY AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL VS. DCIT (ITA NO.931/JP/2017 DATED 02-07-201 8), THE JAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THA T THE AO SHOULD SPECIFY THE NATURE OF DEFAULT MENTIONED IN S EC.271AAB IN THE NOTICE ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NO T SPECIFIED THE NATURE OF DEFAULT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM FOR T HESE TWO YEARS. ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 23 15. THE LD D.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE THAT THE PENALT Y SHALL BE LEVIED U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE T HE DEFECT, IF ANY, POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS CURED BY THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.292BB OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SHRI SANDEEP CHANDAK (INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.122 OF 2017 DATED 27-11-2017). THE LD D.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY KOLKAT TA BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MANOJ BESWAL (ITA NO.1471/KOL/2015 DATED 10-11-2017), WHEREIN THE PEN ALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAB WAS CONFIRMED. THE LD D.R ALSO PLACED H IS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SMT. RITU SINGHAL (ITA 672/2016 DATED 12-03 -2018) RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAA OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES MENTIONED IN THE ABOV E SAID DECISION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASES ALSO. 16. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THA T THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RITU SINGHAL (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE, SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN RENDERED U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE AB OVE SAID CASE, WHERE AS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN AY 2013-14 AND 2014-15 U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DISPUT E WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERI VED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THE SAME WAS ABSENT IN THE CASE OF RITU SINGHAL WHICH FACT LED THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT TO CONF IRM THE PENALTY ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 23 U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE DECISION RENDERED BY KOLKATTA BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MANOJ BESWAL WAS AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RECALLE D BY KOLKATTA BENCH IN THE ORDER PASSED IN MA NOS.218 TO 220/KOL/ 2017 DATED 12.01.2018. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS HAVE BEE N MENTIONED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY JAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHAND MITTAL (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT (A) HAS ALSO MENTIONED SEC. 271(1)(C), BESIDES SEC.271AAB ON THE TABLE AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST PAGE OF ORDER. ACCORDINGLY H E SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SURE ABOUT THE NATURE OF PENALTY LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THE OR DERS PASSED BY BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 17. WE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FAC T THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAB IS APPLICABLE TO AY 2013-1 4 AND 2014-15, SINCE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN BOTH THE YEARS. HENCE, BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AA B(2), WHICH READ AS UNDER, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1)(C) ARE NOT A PPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME:- (2) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 0A OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (1A). 18. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271AAB(1) READ AS UN DER:- 271AAB(1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY , NOT WITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 13 OF 23 THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UND ER SECTION 132 ON AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2012 (BUT BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAXATION LAWS (SECOND AMENDMENT) BILL, 20 16 RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT), THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYA BLE BY HIM,-- (A) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PERCENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE.. (B) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TWENTY PER CENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE (C) A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THIRTY PERCENT BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED NINETY PERCENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES (A) AND (B ) 19. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS WOULD SH OW THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB IS LEVIED ON THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND THE EXPRESSION UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS DEFINED IN SECTI ON 271AAB ITSELF. AS NOTICED EARLIER, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1)(C) SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAB IS APPLIED. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1)(C), PENALTY MAY BE LEVIED FOR EITHER OF TWO CHARGES, VIZ., FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE THE EXPRE SSIONS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TWO CHAR GES MENTIONED IN SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 14 OF 23 20. WITH THIS BACK GROUND, WE SHALL NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS AVAILABLE IN THE PRESENT CASES. A PERUSAL OF ASSES SMENT ORDERS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT. AT THE END OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, HE HAS STATED THAT DEMAND NOTICE AND PENALTY NOTICE U /S 271AAB ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. 21. THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2013-14 IS EXTRACTED BELOW: - --- SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY --- ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 15 OF 23 ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 16 OF 23 IDENTICAL NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR AY 2014-15 ALSO. 22. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID PENALTY NOTICE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TICK MARKED THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE NOTICE: - HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME ADMITTEDLY, THE ABOVE SAID PORTION SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOW EVER, AT THE END OF THE NOTICE, THE AO HAS STATED AS UNDER:- YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 12 .30 PM ON 23.12.2015 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL Y OURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUG H AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRI TING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BE FORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271AAB. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY ISSUING T HE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER EXPLANATION AS TO WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE PASSED. WE HAVE NOTICED EARLIER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAB REFERS TO UNDISCLOSED INC OME AND PENALTY IS ALSO LEVIED ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HE NCE REFERENCE TO THE CHARGES RELATED TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, V IZ., CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 17 OF 23 INCOME, IN THE NOTICE IS IRRELEVANT AND NOT APPLICA BLE TO SEC.271AAB OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO WAS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHIC H HE HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 23. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO CITED BOTH THE PROVISIONS IN THE FIRST PAGE OF HIS ORDER. IN ROW 4, AGAINST THE EXPRESSION INCOME ASSESSED, THE LD CIT(A) HAS MEN TIONED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IN ROW 6, AGAINST THE EXPR ESSION SECTION UNDER WHICH ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED, LD CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED ORDER U/S 271AAB OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. 24. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITI ES ARE NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF R. ELANGOVAN (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS O BSERVED AS UNDER:- . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC. 27 1AAB THAT SECTION 274 AND SECTION 275 OF THE ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 274 O F THE ACT MANDATES THAT ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED ONLY AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE OR GIVING A ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. OPPORTUNITY THAT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MEANINGFUL ONE A ND NOT A FARCE. NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE REPRODU CED (SUPRA) DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. NOTICE IN OUR OPINION WAS VAGUE . HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) RELYING ON ITS OWN JUDGMENT ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 18 OF 23 IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTOR Y (SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER:- ''2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED RAISING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: (1) WHETHER, OMISSION IF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLICITLY MENTION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR THAT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MAKES THE PENALTY ORDER LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? (2) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271(1B) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY BY PROPERLY RECORDING THE SATISFACTION FOR THE SAME? (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEALS AGAINST THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME? 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NO T ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 19 OF 23 SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED''. IN THE EARLIER CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNIN G FACTORY (SUPRA) THEIR LORDSHIP HAD OBSERVED AS UNDE R:- ''NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD 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. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW ; THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE ; TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW ; PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS : THOUGH PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT AND A SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS ; ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 20 OF 23 THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT 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 PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS''. VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS INDIRECTLY AFFIRMED BY THE HON'B LE APEX COURT, WHEN IT DISMISSED AN SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA), SPECIFICALLY OBSERVING THA T THERE WAS NO MERITS IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE RE VENUE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CITED JUDGMENTS, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT, REPRODUCED BY US AT PARA 5 ABOVE WAS NOT VALID. EX- CONSEQUENTI, THE PENALTY ORDER IS SET ASIDE. 25. IN THE INSTANT CASES ALSO, IT IS NOT CLEAR A S TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F OR HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.271AAB OF THE ACT. HENCE THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GIN NING FACTORY (SUPRA), IN OUR VIEW, SHALL APPLY IN THE INSTANT CA SES ALSO. 26. THE LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SA NDEEP CHANDAK (SUPRA). THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HON'BL E HIGH COURT ARE RELEVANT HERE:- ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 21 OF 23 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE PENALTY N OTICE AND WE FIND THAT IN THE PENALTY NOTICE, WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271, THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY HAS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 271AAB BEING INITIATED AND THE REPLY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE DATE SO AS INDICATED WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UN DER SECTION 271AAB. THE FULL CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, HAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB HAS BEEN INITIATED. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO IS ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATIONS ON CON CEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO HAS MENTIONED SECTION 271AAB IN THE LAST SENTENC E OF NOTICE, BUT THE CHARGE SPECIFIED IS NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELEVANT TO SEC.271AAB OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE INSTANT CASES IS DIFFERENT AND AC CORDINGLY THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDE RED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. RITU SINGHAL(SUPRA) IS ON DIFFERENT ISSUE AND IN ANY CASE, IT IS RELATED TO THE PENALTY LEVIE D U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. 27. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2013-14 AND 2014-15 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ACCO RDINGLY THE ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 22 OF 23 PENALTY ORDERS PASSED FOR THE ABOVE SAID YEARS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 28. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE PENALTY ORDERS O N THE ABOVE DISCUSSED LEGAL GROUNDS, THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO A DJUDICATE OTHER GROUNDS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 29. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST OCTOBER, 2019. SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 1 ST OCTOBER, 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NOS.1172 TO 1178 /BANG/2018 PAGE 23 OF 23 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. .. 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED