Millenium Concrete Creation Pvt. Ltd., Dalkhola V. D.C.I.T.,Circle-2, Jalpaiguri

ITA 1820/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7851 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250; 201; 274; 22; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] ITA NO. 1820/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD..................................................................APPELLANT SUBHASH PALLY DALKHOLA WEST BENGAL 733 201 [PAN : AADCM 9921 G] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JALPAIGURI...................... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DHRUBOJYOTI RAY, ADDL. CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 22 ND , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 19 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JALPAIGURI, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 14/12/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHEREIN, HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 122 (ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO) DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. HENCE THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT, IS DEFECTIVE AS IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE I.E., AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME, RENDERING THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, TO BE BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ORDER HAD TO BE PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AN EX-PARTE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AT BEST, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE. 4.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2015 IS A VALID NOTICE UNDE R LAW OR NOT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE IT UP AT ANY POINT OF TIME. HE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INAPPLICABLE PORTIONS WERE NOT STRUCK OFF THUS MAKING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AMBIGUOUS IN SUCH NO 5. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DT. 28/03/2015, PENALTY WAS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED. TH NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. CIT VS. DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY IN ITAT NO. 306 OF 2017, G.A. NO. 2968 OF 2017 DT. 18 TH JULY, 2018, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BA 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 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE D THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OF COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF IN COME 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 OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNS EL 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 PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' MR. CHOW DHURY IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AP PEARS FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. 2 MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2015 IS A VALID NOTICE R LAW OR NOT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE IT UP AT ANY POINT OF TIME. HE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INAPPLICABLE PORTIONS WERE NOT STRUCK OFF THUS MAKING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AMBIGUOUS IN SUCH NO AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DT. 28/03/2015, DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGES AGAINST WHICH THE PENALTY WAS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED. TH E PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY IN ITAT NO. 306 OF 2017, G.A. NO. 2968 OF 2017 JULY, 2018, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSA 'S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN CIT VS 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 BA D 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 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNS EL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE D EPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL . THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING COME 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 OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EL 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 PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' DHURY IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL PEARS FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. ITA NO. 1820/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2015 IS A VALID NOTICE R LAW OR NOT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE IT UP AT ANY POINT OF TIME. HE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INAPPLICABLE PORTIONS WERE NOT STRUCK OFF THUS MAKING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AMBIGUOUS IN SUCH NO TICE. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGES AGAINST WHICH THE E PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. DR. MURARI MOHAN KOLEY IN ITAT NO. 306 OF 2017, G.A. NO. 2968 OF 2017 , JUDGMENT 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE 'S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW D 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 EL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 EPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING CIT VS MANJUNATHA FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL . THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING COME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EL 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 PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' DHURY IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL PEARS FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS MISSED OUT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY PROCEED A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR THAT REASON BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON WHICH COUNT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSE THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 6. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19.08.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD SUBHASH PALLY DALKHOLA WEST BENGAL 733 201 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 3 MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS MISSED OUT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY PROCEED ING BY NOT ISSUING A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR THAT REASON BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON WHICH COUNT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED. ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSE THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE -LAW IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE SAID DECISION OF THE AND , QUASH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, JALPAIGURI 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1820/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 MILLENIUM CONCRETE CREATION PVT. LTD WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS ING BY NOT ISSUING A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE HAS BEEN MADE AND THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON ES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSE D. SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES