DCIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI V. CASBY LOGISTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1949/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3899 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Condonation of delay; Revised return; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, A M & HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1949 & 1950/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) DCIT - 1 (1) (1), 579 , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 112, MARINE CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI - 400 0 20 ./ ./ PAN NO. AA ACC8295Q ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABI RAMA KARIKIYEN , DR / RESPONDENTBY : SHR I NISHANT THAKKAR & MS. JASMIN AMALSADVALA , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 04.01 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2019 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT TWO APPEAL S HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, MUMBAI, DATED 31.12.15 FOR AY 2010 - 11 & 20 11 - 12 RESPECTIVE LY. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 2. SINC E THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 . AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS LETTER DATED 26.02.18 WHICH RELATES TO CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING A PPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN T IME BECAUSE OF HUGE WORKLOAD FOR DISPOSING OF CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 7 DAYS IN FILING THE PRE SENT APPEAL. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A R REQUESTED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SAID APPLICATION. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS APPLICATION FOR SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY AND WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTS OF APPLIC ATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR VRS. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. MSTKITZI, AIR 1987 S.C. 1353 /(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 7 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. RESULTANTLY, THIS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL IS ADMITTED TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. I.T.A. NO. 1949 /MUM/201 6 (AY 2010 - 11 ) 6 . FIRST OF ALL WE TAKE UP REVENUE S APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1949 /MUM/201 6 (AY 2010 - 11 ) ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - ' WHETHER O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DESPITE A CLEAR FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN BEYOND THE DUE DATE FOR FILING REVISED RETURN AND ONLY DUE TO THE ENQUIRIES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR WITHDRAW THE FORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL. 7 . AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 4 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. ( - ) 37,29,082/ - . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ON 16.03.2013 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,14,33,130/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S. 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS OF (A) ADDITION OF INTEREST FROM M/S. RINITA IMPEX PVT. LTD., OF RS.3,44,40,001/ - (B) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN ITR / AIR INFORMATION OF RS.1,03,066/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELL ANT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3,44,40,001/ - FROM M/S. RINITA IMPEX PVT. LTD., IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, AND IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN OFFERING THE AFORESAID SUM FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. CASBY C FS PVT. LTD., AND THE COMPANY WAS DECIDED TO BE AMALGAMATED WITH ITS COMPANY, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE ASSESSMENT THE AO NOTED THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT AND TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ISS UED IN THE APPELLANT NAME. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT M/S. CASBY 5 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. CFS PVT. LTD., HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN BEYOND THE DUE DATE. WITH THIS REASONING THE AO ADDED THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS.3,44,40,001 / - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY, INITIATED PENALTY U/S.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE HAS FILED RESPECTIVE APPEALS BEFORE US. HOWEVER AT PRESENT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEARING ITA NO. 1949 /MUM/201 6 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE . 10 . IN THIS CASE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A LEGAL GROUND BY MOVING AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 OF THE I.T. (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963 ON 20 TH MARCH 2018 ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WISHES TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 DATED 10.03.13 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS VAGUE FOR 6 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. NOT HAVING STRUCK OUT THE UNNECESSARY DETAILS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CHALLENGE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE M ATTER AND ONLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR CONTESTED THE SAID APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NO RIGHT TO MOVE AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 O F I.T. (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE 1963. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS APPLICATION AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VRS. HAZARIMAL NAGJI & CO. 1168 ITR (VOL. XLVI) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. IN SO FAR AS A RESPONDENT ONLY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE D ECREE OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH IS IN HIS FAVOUR, HE IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT IT ON FRESH GROUNDS IF HE CAN DO SO, AND THE APPELLATE COURT ALSO WILL HAVE JURISDICTION TO PERMIT HIM TO DO SO, PROVIDED THAT THE FRESH GROUNDS WHICH HE WANTS TO URGE DO NOT REQUIR E A FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN TO FACTS WHICH ARE NOT ALREADY ON RECORD AND ARE 7 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. NOT BASED ON FACTS WHICH WERE NEITHER ALLEGED NOR ADMITTED NOR PROVED AND WHICH THE OTHER SIDE WAS NEVER CALLED UPON TO MEET IN THE LOWER COURT. 13. FROM THE ABOVE PROPOSITION A S LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT HAD RAISED A LEGAL GROUND WHICH IS PURELY BASED ON THE FACTS WHICH EXISTED ON THE FILE. THEREFORE, WE ARE WELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION TO PERMIT THE ASSES SEE /RESPONDENT TO RAISE THE LEGAL GROUND AFRESH. THUS, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AND THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAME ON MERITS. 14 . ALTHOUGH IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE BEING THE RESPONDENT HAS ALSO RAISED A LEGAL GROUND, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATING THE SAME ON MERITS. SINCE THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE /RESPONDENT GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO DEAL WITH THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT. 8 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 15 . WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD , JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WHILE ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENTS ON MERITS, LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE/ RESPONDENT HAD ALSO CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U NDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT FOR INITIATI NG OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT . A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT THE AO HAS NOT DELETED THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARTS OF THE NOTICE, WHEREBY IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. WHETHER IT IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVI ED. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S MANJUNATAH COTTON & GINNING FACTORY IN ITA NO. 2546 OF 2005 DATED 13.12.2012 , RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE /RESPONDENT, HAD HELD THAT SUCH A NOTICE, AS HAD AL SO BEEN ISSUED IN THE CASE IN HAND, IS 9 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. INVALID AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO NOT VALID. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THEIR LORDSHIPS JUDGEMENT AT PARAS 59 TO 62 THEREOF ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR REFERENCE: - 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS I S INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION - 1 OR IN EXPLANATION - 1(B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS A CCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY T O MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) 10 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY 6 ITA NO.7602/MUM/2014(AY - 2005 - 06) TCFC FINANCE LTD. PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FARM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILI TY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON TH E BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, THAT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MA Y ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE AS SESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM GUILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS 11 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIAT ION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTA NTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GRO UND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PEN ALTY MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALIDATE THE 7 ITA NO.7602/MUM/2014(AY - 2005 - 06) TCFC 12 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. FINANCE LTD. ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE RE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS, THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE L IMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THOM, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE 13 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. 16 . THE CONCLUSION DRAWN THEREIN BY THEIR LORDSHIPS AT PARA 63 THEREOF AND PARTICULARLY AT P) TO S) THEREOF ARE AS UNDER: 63 . A) . P)NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 (1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. Q)SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE G UILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. 17 . IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THIS REGARD, NO CONTRARY DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT OR THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE OR PLACED BEFORE US FOR 14 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN (2013) 359 ITR 565 (KAR), DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VRS SAMSON PERINCHERY DATED 05.01.2017, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 16.03.13 /26.03.13 FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE IN HAND IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALSO INVALID. SINCE T HE VERY BASIS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL , RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY U /S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 18 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ITA NO. 1950/MUM/2016 (AY 2011 - 12 ) 19 . NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NO. 1950 /MUM/2016 (AY 2011 - 12 ) . SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED 15 I.T.A. NO. 1949 & 1950 /MUM/201 6 M/S CASBY LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. THE SIMILAR G ROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1949 /M UM/2016 FOR AY 2010 - 11 ON MERITS. THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION IN ITA NO. 1949 /MUM /16 , WE APPLY THE SAME FINDINGS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN JU DICIAL CONSISTENCY WHICH IS APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 20 . IN THE NET RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STA NDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JAN, 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 31 . 01 .201 9 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI