Sikha Mittal, Tinsukia V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tinsukia

ITA 135/GTY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0788 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M. C. OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: CONSIDERING THIS LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS NO
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 69; 271(1)(c); 274; 13; 20

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, E COURT AT KOLKATA ( ) . . , . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ] I.T.A. NO. 13 5 /GAU/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 SIKHA MITTAL PAN: AJWPM 0214F VS. THE ITO, WARD - 3, TINSUKIA APP ELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 0 9 .0 6 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10 .0 6 .20 20 FOR THE APP ELLANT N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI M. C. OMI NINGSHEN, ADDL. CIT , SR. DR ORDER PE R SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( APPEALS ), DIBRUGARH DATED 27 - 02 - .2019 FOR THE AY 2015 - 16, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1) ( C) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND HAVING CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 29 - 11 - 2018 , WE NOTE FROM PARA 1 OF THE SAID PENALTY ORDER THE AO HAS STATED IN HIS OWN WORDS A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTIONS 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THUS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAD SENT SHOW CAUS E NOTICE FOR BOTH THE FAULTS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C ) OF THE ACT I.E. FOR BOTH (I) CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME (II) AND FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . SO PRIMA FACIE WE NOTE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY AO PR OPOSING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE/ INVALID IN THE EYES OF 2 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL LAW. WHEN WE POINTED OUT THIS FACT OF INVALID NOTICE TO THE LEARNED DR (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) IN ORDER TO ELICIT HIS REPLY ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS SPECIFIC GROUND OF INVALID NOTICE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HIMSELF IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1) ( C) OF THE AC T FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THEREFORE, WE NOTE THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ITSELF IS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND CONSEQUENT LEVY OF PENALTY WAS BAD IN LAW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT AND SLP PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THIS DECISION OF HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED DETAIL INFRA . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFI RMED BY CIT(A) AND AS DISCUSSED [ SUPRA ] WE HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE INVALID NOTICE ISSUED BY AO BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY, WHICH IS A LEGAL ISSUE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADJUDICATE THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THIS LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS NO LONGER RES - INTE GRA . 3. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, A READING OF THE PENALTY ORDER PARA 1[ RELEVANT PORTION EXTRACTED SUPRA] WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT STRICKEN OUT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF THE FAULT/CHARGE WHICH WOULD HAVE SPELT OUT THE SPECIFIC FAULT/CHARGE AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE AS PER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT . S INCE THE PROPOSED NOTICE ITSELF IS DEFECTIVE, ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CANCELLED . FOR COMI NG TO SUCH A CONCLUSION WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER WE NOTE THAT AS AGAINST THE 3 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , TH E REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT [ SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 ] AND THE APEX COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERR ED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER WE NOTE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW C AUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ALSO NOTE THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL LEGAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOL LOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4 . LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPO SED THE ACTION SUGGESTED BY US AND HAS CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS TO OPPOSE THE C ASE LAWS SUGGESTED BY US (SUPRA) . WE NOTE THAT ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR HAS BEEN DEALT WITH ELABORATELY BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA VS. ACIT, ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 FOR AY 2010 - 11 DATED 01.12.2017, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AS UNDER: 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF DR. SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC.271 DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QUESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT . THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATED 21.3. 2017; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHALYA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVE R A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED BEFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR AN Y OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DOES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE 4 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A PARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI - CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRI NCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT - JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON - STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION REND ERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF TH E CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION REN DERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WAS DELETED FOR SO MANY REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNA L HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STRUCK OFF NOR DELETED . THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DETAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR SECTION AND TH EREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THE APPEAL, THE SAID FINDING WAS SET - ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NO LONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGAL SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SET - ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL VIZ., 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE PRINTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE ON BOTH TH E QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED BY 5 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8. 2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FURNISHED IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M. GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MUMBAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHE R THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASP ECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT THE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HON BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON - STRIK ING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT BANGALO RE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE TH EREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY T HE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE 6 ITA NO. 13 5 /GAU/2019 SIKHA MITTAL OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF 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 TO BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRES ENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 5 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN T HE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ` 10 JUNE, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( DR. A. L. SAINI ) ( ABY . T. VARKEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 JUNE, 2020 **PP (SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SMT. SIKHA MITTAL C/O BABA PCO, TAMULBARI, TRUCK STAND, TINSUKIA, ASSAM - 786125 . 2 RESPONDENT INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, WARD - 3, TINSUKIA, ASSAM - 786125. 3. 4. CIT DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PVT. SECY.