ABHIMANYU SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5176 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S DANGUR CIT DHK
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 131; 27

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. ABHIMANYU SINGH, PROP.- M/S MANU MOTORS, PLOT NO. 10, K-5, SCHEME, QUEENS ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AGWPS 4595 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. DANGUR (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/06/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/06/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/10/2012 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-I JAIPUR, FOR A. Y. 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 09/08/2011 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REA SONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO (2) RS. 11,87,476/-:- THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 11,87,476/-. THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED AND CONFIRMED, BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS KINDLY BE DELETED IN FUL L. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 11,87,476/- U/S 271(10(C) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THIS APPEAL AFTER DELAY OF 58 DAYS, FOR WHICH NECESSARY AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIRECTED CONCERNED AR TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN TIME BUT THE AR HAD ASSIGNED TO THIS WORK TO ANOTHER AR, WHO GOT MIXED UP FILE WITH OTHER FILES AND WHICH WAS NOT TRACEABLE. THERE IS NO LACK ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND THE DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. 2.1 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS HEAVILY OPPOSED TH E CONDONATION OF DELAY. AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH SIDES, IN THE INTERE ST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 31/07 /2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 95,880/-. APART FROM THIS, HE HAD ALS O SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 35,98,640/-. THE CASE WA S SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADD ITION OF RS. 3 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO 35,98,640/- ON ACCOUNT OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME N OT VERIFIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT WAS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT IN CONCLUDING PARA, HE HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SEPARATE LY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL AS HONBLE ITAT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. 3.1 BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD, WHICH WAS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27/7/2011 , WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 AND 4 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSE SSING OFFICER HELD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLA RED AT RS. 35,98,640/- WAS GENUINE. NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALED INCOME BY SHOWING BOGUS/NON-GENUINE AG RICULTURAL INCOME. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SQUARELY D ISTINGUISHABLE. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS. 35,98,640/- SHOWN AS AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME WAS 4 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. HE FURTH ER HELD THAT THE HISTORY OF THE CASE AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES PROVES TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE A STORY TO EVADE TAX BY SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SAFEDA TREES. ON BEING ASKED HE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SAFEDA TREES WER E GROWN HENCEFORTH, THE SELF MADE EVIDENCES OF SELLING THESE TREES ARE IMMATERIAL AS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AND HAVE NO WEIGHTAGE E SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATIO N. MERE FILINGS OF AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND HE FAILE D TO PRODUCING THESE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN SIMILAR FACTS OF CASES. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHICH HE INVESTED IN THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING THE TA X, HE OPTED TO SHOW IT IN THE GARB OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O.. AS SUCH, IT IS EST ABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME BY FILING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEN TIONALLY CONCEALED HIS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF HIS INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 35,98,640/- BY DISCLOSING BOGUS/NON GENUINE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CLEAR CUT MENS REA FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE MENS REA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND DOUBT AND THEREBY COMMITTED THE DEFAULT AS P RESCRIBED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND IS THEREFORE LIABL E FOR PENALTY. HE FINALLY IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T ON CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AT RS. 11,87,476/-, WHICH IS 100% OF TAX S OUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEALED INCOME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CONF IRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASES RELIED ON BY TH E AR AND FIND THAT THE LAW EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF HIS CASE. IN HIS CASE WHEN THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS DISCOVERED AND ENQUIRIES INITIATED THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN SHOWING ALLE GED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO EXPLAIN THIS INVESTMENT. THEREAFTER, IN-SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITY HE WAS N OT 6 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE IKRARNAMA BETWEEN RAIS KHAN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE INVALID EVIDENC E IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FIVE AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED FROM THE TIMBER MERCHANTS AND TWO WITNESSES OF THE IKRARNAMA BUT IN-SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITY THEY WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AVERMENTS MADE. THUS THE ASSESSE E NEVER DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF SUBSTANTIATING THE EVI DENCE FILED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AO HELD THE EVIDE NCE FILED BY WAY OF IKRARNAMA TO BE FALSE. SO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C). AMENDMENTS WERE MADE IN THE EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 271(1 )(C). THE EXPLANATION WAS REPLACED BY NEW EXPLANATIONS 1 TO 4 BY TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975 W.E.F. 01/04/1976. SOME OF THE EXPLANATIONS HA VE BEEN AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT I S NOW FOR ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HIS CASE DOES NOT FALL U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH EXPLANATIONS, IF INVOKED BY THE AO. IN THIS CASE AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDE N TO 7 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO PROOF FOR VERIFYING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY HIM AS PER EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). FURTHERMORE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE RETURN IS FILED ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT IS OBVIOUS THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: CEMENT DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. V/S CIT (1966) 60 1TR 586 (MAD.) VELAVARTI GOPALAKRISHNAIAH V/S CIT (1968) 67 ITR 184 (AP). IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR REC ORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY AN IKRARNAMA WITH SHRI RAES KHAN WAS FURNISHED WHO IN TURN HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY RECORDS REGARDING THIS TRANSACTION. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI RAIS KHAN AND SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH THE AO HELD THIS IKRARNAMA TO BE INVALID EVIDENCE. THEREAFTER, THE ON US SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY O F THIS ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE FILED FIVE AFFIDAVI TS, TWO FROM THE WITNESSES OF THE IKRAMAMA AND THE THREE FRO M THE TIMBER MERCHANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN-SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITY HE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE THE TIMBER MERCHANT ALONG WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SHOW SOURCE OF THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHA SE 8 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO OF THIS TIMBER NOR WERE THE WITNESS TO THE IKRARNAMA EVER PRODUCED. BY MERELY FILING OF THE AFFIDAVITS I N THE CASE OF HIS WITNESSES HE DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISCHA RGE HIS BURDEN OF PROOF PARTICULARLY WHEN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OR RECORDS REGARDING THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE PRODUCE D. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THESE FACTS THE PENALTY 1 OF RS.11,87,476/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.35,98,640/- IS CONFIRMED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD A R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD AS SESSING OFFICER IS OUT OF JURISDICTION AS THERE IS NO PRECISE CHARGE HAD BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 27 4 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN ONE PLACE, TH E LD ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS IMPOSED PENALTY ON OTHER LIMB I.E. CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD AND IT IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN LAST PARAGRAPH, HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. IN NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274, NOTICE WAS GIVEN FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR 9 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME FO R WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT & ANR. VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 ( KARN) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPE CIFICALLY STATE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT CERTAI N PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SECTION 271 ARE GIVEN WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON VAR IOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE COURT ON IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS CIT IN ITA NO. 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 0 6/10/2015. THE HONBLE JAIPUR ITAT ALSO FOLLOWED THIS DECISION IN TH E CASE OF SHRI PRAKASH JOY VS. ACIT ITA NO. 585/JP/2013 DATED 24/2/2016. FU RTHER THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE C ASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. VS CIT (2006) 282 ITR 0642 (GUJ) WHER EIN THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE PENALTY COULD NOT BE SUSTAINE D. HE ALSO REFERRED VARIOUS HONBLE ITAT DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE. HE HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE 10 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CAN AGAIN S UBMIT ON MERIT IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON VARIOUS CASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED VARIOUS EVIDENCES I.E. COPIES OF LAND HOLDING OF 25 ACRES A ND TREES GROWN, POPULAR AND SAFEDA TREES IN THE AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE PURC HASER NAMELY SHRI RAIS KHAN, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT/CONFI RMATIONS OF ALL MAJOR BUYERS ALONGWITH COPIES OF INVOICES/PURCHASE VOUCHER S, IN WHICH QUANTITY, AMOUNT AND RATE OF THE TREES PURCHASED FROM THE APP ELLANT HAD BEEN SHOWN. THESE CONTAINED COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS, TI N NO. OF THE BUYER/TIMBER MERCHANTS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY ON EVIDENCES FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE PURCHASER TO PROVE THE BONAF IDE OF THE FACT, WHICH WAS ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHAS ER IN PRESENCE OF TWO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS B UT AS PER LAW, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DECIDED SEPARATELY AF TER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIOUS OBS ERVATIONS MADE BY THE 11 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO LOWER AUTHORITIES I.E. ANCESTRAL LAND & TCS NOT COLLE CTED WHICH WERE IRRELEVANT FOR THE CONFIRMING OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND FALSE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. L TD. 322 ITR 158. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE PURCHASERS TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TRANSAC TION BUT HE DID NOT EXERCISE HIS POWER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE AS SESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS CASTED UPON HIM AND HAD PROVED THE IDENTIT Y OF SHRI RAIS KHAN BY FILING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PARTICULARLY RATION CA RD AND COPY OF AGREEMENT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS ON SIGNATURE/THUMB IMPRESSION, THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED B Y THE LD CIT(A). HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS AS UNDER:- (1) CIT VS SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN (1999) 237 ITR 570 ( SC). (2) ABHINAV AJMERA VS. ACIT (2011) 12 ITR 290 (DEL). (3) CIT VS LAL BABU (1980) 122 ITR 1006 (PAT). (4) CIT VS CHOTANAGPUR GLASS WORKS (1984) 145 ITR 02 25 (PAT). (5) UNION OF INDIA VS RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS (2009) 224 CTR (SC) 1. (6) PAWAN INDUSTRIES VS. ITO (2012) 147 TTJ 246 (JD). (7) CIT & ANR VS SLN TRADERS (2011) 60 DTR 44 (KAR). 12 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAS CONFIR MED THE ADDITION IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROV E THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN WAS GENUINE. THE LD AS SESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN OPPORTUNITY AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AT THAT STAGE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY F URTHER EVIDENCE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN WAS GENUINE. THEREFORE, HE HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALING OF INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY, SAME MAY BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS INITIATE D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHER EAS IN CONCLUDING PARA, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE NOTICE GIVEN U/S 274 FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN PENALTY ORDER, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IMPOSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE THAT WHETHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR F URNISHING OF INACCURATE 13 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE VARIOUS ITATS AS WELL AS HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACT ORY & ORS. (SUPRA) AND BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRA KASH JOY VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND DECIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOU LD HAVE MADE SPECIFIC CHARGE AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEED INGS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER HE SHOULD SPECIFIC THE CHARGE IN NOTICE U /S 274 OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN PENALTY ORDER ITSELF, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD DEFEND HIS CASE ON PROPOSED CHARGE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND ITS CASE AND VIOLA TE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S MANJUNATH COTTON & GINNING FACTORY & ORS. (SUPRA) H AS HELD THAT SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECT ION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUND WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, OTHERWISE, THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDING S, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. TICKING OF THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE COO RDINATE BENCH ALSO CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN THE CASE OF RADH A MOHAN MAHESHWARI VS. 14 ITA NO. 187/JP/2013 ABHIMANYU SINGH VS ITO DCIT IN ITA NO. 773/JP/2013 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ORDER DATED 18/3/2016. AFTER CONSIDERING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION AS WELL AS HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE PENA LTY IMPOSED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/06/2016. SD/- SD/- DQYHKKJR VH-VKJ-EHUK (KUL BHARAT) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21 ST JUNE,2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.187/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR