DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1197/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1619 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN CITSRDR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1197 / KOL / 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 DCT, CRCLE-11(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKTA-69 V/S . M/S P.C. CHANDRA (JEWELLERS), PVT. LTD., 49C, GAIAHAT ROAD, KOLKATA-19 [ PAN NO.AABCP 8654 M ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 11-01-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-02-2018 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATA DAT ED 06.07.2015. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.08.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E ASSESSEE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.23,68,786/- IMP OSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 1961. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELE TE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR ALL THE TIME OF HEARING . ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 SHRI SALLONG YADEN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF 23,68,786/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FIELD ITS RETURN OF INCOME DATED 29.09.2011 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF 15,55,40,588/- ONLY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELE CTED UNDER SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF CASS MODULE AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S . 143(2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.09.2011. AGAIN AN OTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.04.2013 REQUIRING TH E ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CERTAIN DETAILS. 4. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME FOR 78,95,954/- ON THE LAND FOR 7,89,59,536/- PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR. ON BEING C ONFRONTED TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, ASSESSEE CONCEDED ITS MISTAKE AND O FFERED AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION TO TAX VIDE LETTER DATED 05.08.2013. A CCORDINGLY, AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON L AND AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AO IN HIS ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ISSUED PENALTY NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT DATED 28..08.2013. THE AO FINAL LY LEVIED THE PENALTY OF 23,68,786/- BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVAD ED BY ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD CL AIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE LAND INADVERTENTLY AND SAME MISTAKE WAS RECTIFIED B Y THE AUDITOR IN WRITING BY FILING A LETTER BEFORE AO ON 05.08.2013. THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY DISSATISFACTION FOR HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NECESSARY DETAILS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS DULY FURNISHED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT. THEREFORE, THERE W AS NO MISSTATEMENT ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO BY OBSER VING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS JUD ICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AR. ON AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE MATTER AND ALSO THE ARS SUBMISSIONS ON THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) BY THE AO, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONCEDED SUO MOTTO DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE HAD OCCURRED ON THE PT OF TH E AUDITOR IN CLAIMING THE IMPUGNED DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIF IED AND A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD., WHEREBY, THE SAID AMOU NT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. GOING BY THE VARIOUS COURT DECISIONS AS WELL AS EXP LANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C), I FIND THAT PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT DOES NOT ARISE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED AN EXPLANATION WHIC H WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE AO AND ALSO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OFF ERED AN EXPLANATION WHICH WAS DULY SUBSTANTIATED AND SUCH EXPLANATION WAS BON A FIDELY MADE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO CONCEAL I TS INCOME BY MAKING A WRONG CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPUGNED DEPRECIATION. THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) AS NARRATED SUPRA SQURELY COVERES THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL. FURTHERMORE, THE JURISDICIOIAL HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA UNDER SIMILAR C IRCUMSTANCES, AS NARRATED SUPRA, HAS WAIVED THE PENALTY IMPOSE U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); CIT VS. SNIA MIRZA (A .P. HIGH COURT ITA NO. 526 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2012) AND PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (21012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), THE APEX COURT SPE CIFICALLY RULED THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE N LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR REGARDIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AM OUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . I FIND THAT THE RATIO OF THE OTHER COURT DECISIO NS CITED BY THE AR SUPRA TO BE ALSO APPLICABLE IN THE APPELL ANTS CASE CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN VIEW OF THE FOR EGOING AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY W HICH IS NOW DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 7. BEFORE US LD. DR FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A S SUMMARIZED UNDER:- 2.1 IT IS AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE EITHER CIT(A) O R THE HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA, NOR IS THE ISSUE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF OP PORTUNITY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 STATES THAT 'SECTION 271 NO WHERE ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 MANDATES THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCE ALMENT OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS, SATISFA CTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION.' 2.2 THE BANGALORE BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL ('ITAT') IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAYSONS INFRASTRUCTU RE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ITO [TS-5873-ITAT-2017(BANGALORE)-0] HELD THAT SINC E THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONED THE REASON FOR INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, NOT MENTIONING THE REASON IN THE PENALTY NOTICE SHOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE TAXPAYER. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE REQUI REMENTS OF SECTION 271(1)(C), AS DISCUSSED BY THE KHC, WERE COMPLIED WITH IN THIS CASE. 2.2 THE JAIPUR BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL ('ITAT') IN A MOST RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF AIREN METALS PVT. LT D., JAIPUR VS ACIT, JAIPUR ON 29 SEPTEMBER, 2017 IN ITA NO. 820/JP/2016 HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271(1)(C), AS DISCUSSED BY THE HON'BLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, WERE COMPLIED WITH IN THIS CASE. 2.3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R/W 271(1)(C), IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR AS TO FO R WHAT PRECISE CHARGE, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE VIZ. WHETHER THE CHARGE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR IT WAS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN AS MUCH AS A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE INAP PROPRIATE WORDS/UNWANTED CHARGE HAVE NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF. THE AO NEITHER SCO RED OUT NOT TICKED WHICH PARTICULAR PART OF ALLEGED OFFENCE, HE WAS RELYING UPON. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S REFERRED TO PARA 59 OF DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT IN CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON WHILE ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION, E XCERPT OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXIST ENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COU LD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFAC TION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTEN CE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF I T IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 OR IN EXPLANATION 1 (B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NAT URE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, TH E PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD B E MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PEN ALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGH T TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEE T THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FORM W HERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT RE BUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISION S HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWIS E, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPO SED ON THE ASSESSEE. ' '22. AS THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD IN THE ABOVE CA SE THAT THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTI ON 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND I MPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSES SEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPOR TUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LI ABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE GROUNDS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ARE THUS LINKED TO THE ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IT WAS HELD THAT S UCH PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE OFFENDED. NOW, LET'S EXAMINE HOW THE SAME IS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ISSUED TWO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES. THE FIRST S HOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2011 WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE AWARE OF INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTE R, ANOTHER SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 18.06.2012. THOUGH THE F IRST SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TALKS ABOUT CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE LATTER SHO W-CAUSE NOTICE TALKS ABOUT BOTH CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HOWE VER CHOSE TO IGNORE BOTH THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES AND NEITHER ATTE NDED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/ EXPLANATIO NS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT IS CRYS TAL CLEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVING IN ITIATED AGAINST IT AND WAS GRANTED TWO OPPORTUNITIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRESENT ITS CASE OFFER ITS EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE CHOOSES TO IGNORE THOSE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES AND NOW HAS COME UP BEFORE US AND PLEADED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS B EEN VIOLATED BY STATING THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. IN OUR VIEW, B Y NOT ATTENDING TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO WITHOUT SHOWI NG ANY REASONABLE CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EFFECTIVELY WAIV ED ITS RIGHT TO CONTEST AT HIGHER APPELLATE FORUM THAT HIS RIGHTS T O PLEAD HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. EVEN BEFORE US, NO PLEADINGS HAVE BEEN TA KEN TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND OFFERING ITS EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AD. FURTHER, NO SUCH PLEADING HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE ID CIT(A) A S WELL REGARDING VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HAVING R ECORDED THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HA VE BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 IS IN FURTHERANCE OF ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 RECORDING OF SUCH SATISFACTION AND HAS THUS TO BE R EAD ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT INDEPENDENT OF IT. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE INITIATION OF PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS AND IT FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT CHOOSE TO REMAI N SILENT AND FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S. WE THEREFORE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE INITIATION OF THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS CLEARLY NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AS CANVASSED BY THE ID AR'. 2.4. THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE UNDER APPEAL. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN O PPORTUNITY ON THREE OCCASIONS VIZ; 07.11.2012, 02.04.2013 & 10.04.2013 BUT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE FIRST TWO D ATES NOR WAS ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED ON 10.04.2013 WH EN THE AR APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVING INITIATED AGAINST IT AND WAS GRA NTED AFORESAID OPPORTUNITIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRESENT I TS CASE / OFFER ITS EXPLANATION. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. HENC E, BESIDES LEGAL ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, EVEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF AIREN METALS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS ACIT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AO & CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 2.5. THE ITAT MUMBAI IN ITS ORDER IN TRISHUL ENTERP RISES VS. DCIT (ITA NOS.384 & 385/MUM/2014 FOR A.YRS.2006-07 & 2007-08) , DT.10-02-2017, DISMISSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING FAILURE OF THE AO TO STRIKE OFF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE NOTICE U/S.274 FOR INI TIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.271 (1)(C). THE ITAT RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA(1992) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'MERE NOT STRIKING OFF SPECIFIC LIMB CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT TH E ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPO RTUNITY OF SHOW CAUSE.. ' 2.6. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH) I N THE CASE OF M/S. MAHARAJ GARAGE & COMPANY VS. CIT IN ITS JUDGEMENT D T.22-08-2017, HELD THAT '15. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 274 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT FOR GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO THE EXTENT OF FRAMING A SPECIFIC CHARGE OR ASKING THE A SSESSEE AN EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY PROPOSED TO BE IM POSED, AS HAS BEEN URGED ... ' 2.7. THE HON'BLE MUMBAI E BENCH IN THE CASE OF EART HMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 HELD 'THAT AFTER PERUSING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT REN DERED IN MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S AP PEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MULTIPLE F ACTORS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN NOTICE U/S 274. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PENALTY COULD NOT BE DELETED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT POINTED BY THE LD AR IN THE NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE LEGAL GROUNDS RA ISED ARE REJECTED. ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 3. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C), WERE CORRECTLY INITIATED AND THE CAS E MAY BE HEARD ON MERITS. HE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED PA PER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 54 AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH AR E REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- '(1) LF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON--- (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME AN ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SECTION IMPLIES THAT PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 STANDS ATTRACTED, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, WHEN:- AN ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCO ME. AN ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. HERE, IT WILL BE BEFITTING FOR US TO DISCUSS THE ME ANING OF (I) 'CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME' AND (II)'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ': THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF THE WORD CONCEAL IS 'TO HIDE, WITHDRAW, OR REMOVE FROM OBSERVATION; COVER OR KEEP FROM SIGHT; TO KEEP SECRET; TO AVOID DISCLOSING OR DIVULGING'. THUS CONCEALMENT OF 'PART ICULARS OF INCOME' MEANS NON DISCLOSURE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE PARTICULARS ARE DISCLOSED BUT SUCH DISCLOSURE IS NOT CORRECT, TRUE OR ACCURATE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO 'FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME'. THE KEY PHRASE USED IN BOTH THE ABOVE CHARGES IS 'P ARTICULARS OF INCOME'. IT IS THUS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THIS PH RASE: THE CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING' OF INACCURATE IS WITH REFERENCE TO ' PARTICULARS OF INCOME ' ONLY. THE INFORMATION / DETAILS ABOUT OTHER DETAILS SUCH AS SUBJECTIVE AREAS INCLUDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION OR THE INTERPRE TATION OF ANY LEGAL PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ABOVE CLAUSE AND WOULD ACCORDINGLY BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 271(1)(C). ONLY WHEN THERE I S CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FURNISHED ARE INACCURATE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE ATTRACTED. 2. IN CONNECTION TO THE ABOVE, ATTENTION OF YOUR HO NOURS IS INVITED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN IT I S HELD AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(III) FOR INTEREST PAID ON LOAN TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE AO DISALLOWED TH E INTEREST U/S 14A AND LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE PENALTY WAS DELETED BY THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, H ELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL: (I) S. 271(1)(C) APPLIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE 'HAS CO NCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME '. THE PRESENT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. AS REGARDS THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS , NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURA TE. THE WORDS ' INACCURATE PARTICULARS ' MEAN THAT THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDI NG TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING BY THE AO TH AT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF I NVITING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). (II) THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT 'SUBMITTING A N INCORRECT CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF SUCH INCOME' IS NOT CORRECT. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N CAN THE MAKING OF AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS N OT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE CONTENTION OF TH E REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLA IM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WIL L INVITE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF T HE LEGISLATURE. (III) THE LAW LAID DOWN IN DILIP SHROFF 291 1TR 519 (SC) AS TO THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE' CON TINUES TO BE GOOD LAW BECAUSE WHAT WAS OVERRULED IN DHARMENDRA TEXTIL E PROCESSORS 306 ITR 277 (SC) WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP SHROFF WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR PENA LTY U/S 271 (1 )(E). ' 9.1.AN ANALYSIS OF THE SAID DECISION CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THAT MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 9.2.IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS PERUSED, IT CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND AS SHALL BE EVIDENT FROM SCHEDULE - E OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 3-21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PURCHASE DEED OF THE LAND WAS DULY FURN ISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MISTAKENLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SAID LAND TO THE TUNE OF RS .78,59,954/- IN THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE FINALIZING THE FINAL ACCO UNTS AND PREPARING THE RETURN. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AUDITOR AND VI DE ITS LETTER DATED 05.08.2013 AT PARA 7, THE AUDITOR WROTE THAT IT WAS AN UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE WHICH IS OFFERED FOR TAXATION (AS SHALL BE EVIDENT FROM THE CHALLAN AND EVIDENCES ENCLOSED AT PAGES 46-47 OF THE PAPER BOOK ) SAND THE REQUESTED THE LD. A.O. TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE SAME AS THERE W AS UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE. THE LD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE IMPUGNED DEPRECI ATION MADE IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR SUCH WRONG CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE IN THE RE TURN, ALTHOUGH WITHDRAWN AS WRONGLY CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 9 3. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATIS FACTION IN ITS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHY HE FELT THAT THERE WERE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SAID BONA FIDE MISTAKE OF AUDITOR WAS DULY RECTIFIE D AND NECESSARY TAXES AND INTEREST WAS PAID. 4. FURTHER IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCOVERED THE MISTAKE SUO MOTO AND VIDE LETTER DATED 05.08.2013 WITHDREW THE CLAIM HAVING BEEN MADE AS A N UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE. THEREFORE IT WAS A CLAIM MADE DUE TO CLERI CAL MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE AUDITOR AND ALSO CORRECTED BY HER AND THIS CANN OT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME UNLESS IT IS ES TABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED WITH MALA FIDE INTENTION OR HAS CLAIMED D EDUCTION BEING AWARE OF WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. 4.1. THUS FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAD C ONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A MERE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON LAND WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN LAW, WHICH WAS FURTHER CORRECTED AND OFFERED TO TAX, DOES NOT AMOU NT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.2. RELIANCE FOR THE ABOVE CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON T HE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SAMURAI TECHNO TRAD ING P. LTD (2016) 389 ITR 357 (KER) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 'UNDER SECTIO N 271 (L)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, IF ANYONE OF THE OFFICERS MENTIONED THEREIN IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, THE AMOUNT INDICATED. WHILE APPRECIATING T HE SCOPE OF CLAUSE (C), ONE HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANAT ION 1 WHICH IS IN TWO PARTS. UNDER CLAUSE (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF THE TOTAL INCOME SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANAT ION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION AND THE OFFICER CONCERNED HAS FOUND IT TO BE FALSE. CLAUSE (B) TAKES IN THREE PARTS. THE .FIRST PART IS THAT AN EXPLANATION HAS B EEN OFFERED AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. THE SECOND PART IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS BO NA FIDE AND THE THIRD PART IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAV E BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1, THERE MUST BE A POSITIVE .FINDING THAT IN THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, THE THREE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE WORDS ' FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ' REFER TO THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME WHICH HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF ' CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' IS THAT INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED AT ALL OR IS NOT EVEN RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME MAY BE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS FROM THE RETURN FUR NISHED. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN CLAIMS, WHICH WERE NOT AC CEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT ITSELF WOULD NOT AT TRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) . ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 10 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS WHICH W ERE DISALLOWED AND ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE TO ITS INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94, 1994-95 AND 1995-96. PENA LTY WAS IMPOSED BUT IT WAS CANCELLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS NO FIND ING THAT THERE WERE ANY CONCEALMENT OF ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO ATTRACT SECTION 271(1)(C) . SECONDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEVIED PENALTY IGNORING THE E XPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY WAS THERE FORE JUSTIFIED. ' PCIT VS. TORQUE PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD [2016] 389 ITR 46 (P&H) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 'HELD, THAT AN ADDITION TO INCOME W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM TO DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. NO FINDING HAD BEEN RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MALA FIDE. IT HAD BEEN CATEGORICAL LY RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER EXAMINING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON REC ORD THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD RIGHTLY CANCELLED THE PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A BONA .FID E CLAIM TO DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ACCEPTAB LE TO THE DEPARTMENT IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR .FILED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. ' PCIT VS. S.S. FOOD INDUSTRIES [2016] 382 ITR 388 (P&H) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 'THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BISCUITS, COOKIES AND OTHER BAKERY PRODUCTS FILED A NIL RETUR N FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, CLAIMING DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80-IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AMOUNTING. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (L )(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND AN ORDE R IMPOSING PENALTY WAS PASSED. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA V. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218(WHI CH HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE) WAS RENDERED ON AUGUST 31, 2009 BUT WAS P UBLISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2009. IT HAD BEEN CATEGO RICALLY RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE GAP BETWEEN THE PUBLICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA'S CASE AND TH E FILING OF THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE AND PENALTY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED. FURTHER THE TRI BUNAL HAD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF THE I NCOME AND HAD NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING. ONCE PROPER DISCLOSURE WAS MADE PENALTY WAS NOT ATTRACTED. THE RETURN WAS .FILED ON THE BASIS OF TH E CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THOUGH UNDER MISTAKE, AND THE ASSESSEE COULD TAKE THE BENEFIT ON THE BASIS OF BONA .FIDE BELIEF THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 11 AND, THEREFORE THE ORDER DID NOT WARRANT ANY INTERF ERENCE BY THE COURT. THE DEPARTMENT WAS UNABLE TO SHOW ANY PERVERSITY OR ILL EGALITY IN THE ORDER. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION . ' THUS FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT STA NDS ESTABLISHED THAT MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 5. FURTHER, IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION, AS NOTED IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WITHDREW THE CLAIM REALIZING THE SAME AS MISTAKE AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THE INST ANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AKIN TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF 'PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD VS. CIT [2012/348 ITR 30 6 SC. IN THAT CASE THE FACTS BEHIND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT WERE THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S TAX AUDIT REPORT IT WAS INDICATED THAT P ROVISION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF GRATUITY WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADD PROVISION FOR HRATUTITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. A.O. IMPOSED PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE HON'BLE TRI BUNAL UPHELD THE IMPOSITION BUT REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY ON TH E VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A MISTAKE WHICH COULD BE DESCRIBED AS A SI LLY MISTAKE. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS A HIGH CALIBRE AND COMPETENT ORGAN IZATION, IT WAS NOT EXPECTED TO MAKE SUCH A MISTAKE. THE MATTER WENT TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHERE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED. THE MATTER ULTIMATELY WENT TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION WAS WHETHER IT WAS A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, WARRANTING NO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, ALTHOUGH UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESS EE IS A REPUTED FIRM AND HAS GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT, DESPITE THIS IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A SILLY MISTAKE. THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE OBSERVATION/FINDING (PARA 19 & 20) OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT, TO QUOTE, IS AS UNDER: 'THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALS O NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROU GH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING IT S RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THI S CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. TH E CALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAREFUL C ANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMP OSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTE NDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PAR TICULARS. ' ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 12 6. THUS AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT INADVERTENT ERROR MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MEAN FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME AND THUS PENALTY PROVISIONS U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FINDS ITS STRENGTH FROM THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF 'DC IT, CC-VIII VS. RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL ITA NO.1700/KO/2012 HELD THAT 'WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT ON OFF MARKET SHARE TRANSACTION OF TRADING IN LISTED COMPANY SHARE, NO CAPITAL GAINS WOULD ARISE. WE HOLD THAT THIS BONA FIDE BELIEF CANNOT BE DOUBTED IN THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COME FORWARD TO RECTIFY THE MISTA KE IN NOT MENTIONING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL ON SALE OF LISTED COMPANY'S SHARE S ON OFF MARKET IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, AND ON NOTICING THE SAME THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND AS ENTERED IN THE ORDER SHEETS BY THE ID. AO. THUS, TH E ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME VOLUNTARILY BEFORE DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE VERSION OF THE LD.AO IN HIS PENALTY ORDER THAT ASSE SSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SPECIFIC ISSUE ON TAXABILITY OF LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. VISHAL RETAIL LTD. IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT IS RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE HEREIN BELOW THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE AC T. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C): 'WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMP UTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT- (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATI ON IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING TH E TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS AN RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PUR POSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 11 IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE EXPLANATION TO THE ASSES SEE BY FILING A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME OFFERING LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS VOLUNTARILY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN EXPLA NATION FOR NOT OFFERING THE SAME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO HIS BO NA FIDE BELIEF AS STATED SUPRA. HIS BONA FIDE EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ID. AO. FROM THE ABOVE, IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT A S PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, NO PENALTY COULD BE I MPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 13 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESIT ATION IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ID. C1T(A) IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ' THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT KOLKATA ALSO IN THE CASE OF B.D. KHAITAN & COMPANY LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C IRCLE-5 IN 1.T.A. NO. 310/KO1/2012 HAS HELD THAT' WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE 0.11 RECORD. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT NON-ADDITION OF L OSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS OF RS.1,42,7291-, SUO MOTU BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS ONL Y A MISTAKE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF E- FILING OF RETURN. THEREFORE IT WAS VERY POSSIBLE FOR SUCH A MISTAKE TO HAPPEN. ONCE IT IS A CCEPTED AS A SIMPLE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT MADE WITH ANY INTEN TION OF CONCEALING ANY INCOME, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS ANY ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NONE OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES HAS POINTED OUT AS TO WHAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS. OBVIOUSLY LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS WAS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITS BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. V. CIT [MANUISCI079912012MANUISCI079912012 348 1TR 306] HE LD THAT EVEN A REPUTED FIRM LIKE PRIME WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD . HAVING GREAT EXPERTISE COULD MAKE A SILLY MISTAKE IN COMPUTATION AND IF SU CH MISTAKE IS BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT CANNOT LEAD TO A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C). THIS IS ALL THE MORE A GOOD REASON FOR US TO REACH AN OPINION THAT THIS WAS NOT A FIT CASE WHERE WE CAN SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME. IN OUR OPINION, LEVY OF PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS NOT WARRANTED. SUCH PENALTY STANDS QUASHED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.' VINITA PAHWA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1) (25.04.2016 IT AT DELHI) MANU/ID/0400/2016 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 'FOLLOWIN G THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE JUDGMENT CITED AS PRI CE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSE D IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS DUE TO INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND VOLUNTARILY REVISED THE I NCOME BY OFFERING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4,59,7141- FOR TAXATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) I S HEREBY SET ASIDE. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ' 14.1. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL DECI SIONS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON LAND AMOUNTING TO 7,89,59,536/- DUE TO INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE SAID FACT WAS CLEARLY APPRECIATED BY THE LD. CIT AN D THUS DELETED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. AO. U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 14 15. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD S PECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) I.E. WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS O F INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. IN THIS REGARD RELI ANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 WHEREI N IT IS HELD THAT 'NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A. O UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEE N INITIATED I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013~ 359 IT R 565. THE SAID DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS B EEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONB'LE SUPREME COURT IN SLA CC. NO. 11485/2016. TH E SAID ORDER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 50-54 OF THE PAPER BOOK 15.1. APPLYING THE AFORESAID RATIO TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NOTICE DATED 28.08.201 3 UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION WHETHER THE SAME WAS ISSUED FO R CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME (ENCLOSED A T PAGES 48-49 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE SAID NOTICE IS A PRINTED NOTICE WHEREIN ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE MENTIONED. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT OR MARKED IN THE NOTICE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HA D CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS AS PER THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WHICH WAS AFFI RMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE NOTICE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRE MENTS OF LAW AND HENCE NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 16. THUS ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOV E, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT THE LD. CIT HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED BY THE LD. AO. AMOUNTING TO RS.23,68,786, H ENCE THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE LAND FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND THEREFORE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENHANCED BY THE AMOUNT O F DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE LAND. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ASSISTED BY THE TAX CONSULTANTS. THEREFORE SUCH SILLY MISTAK E CANNOT BE EXPECTED BY SUCH ORGANIZED COMPANY. HOWEVER THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN SUCH A SITUATION HAS ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 15 HELD THAT THE INADVERTENT MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT CASE LAW IS PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) (LTD) VS. CIT REPORTED IN 348 ITR 306 WHERE THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 19. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALSO N O QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN, FA ILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESC RIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE CALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAREFUL CANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSED IS G UILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIF IED. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCO ME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. BESIDES THE ABOVE WE ALSO FIND THAT NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE AO U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO W HETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE I NAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION O F PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS T O BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 02/ 02/2018 SD/- SD/- ( $ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 02 / 02 /201 8 ITA NO.1197/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2011 -12 DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOL. VS. M/S PCC(JEWELL ERS), PVT. LTD. PAGE 16 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1 . /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQU ARE, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S P.C. CHANDRA (JEWELLERS), PVT. LTD. ,49C, GARIAHAT RD. KOL-19 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,