Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1224 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-03-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
07-10-2016
Judgement Text
1 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: KOL KATA BEFORE: SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUD ICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1989/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2012-13 QUADEYA SECURITIES VS. D.C.I.T, CIR-5, KOLKATA PVT. LTD. PAN AABCE7790H [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI S.GUPTA, ACA, LD.AR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, ADDL.CIT, LD.SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 13-02-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-03-2018 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 2, KOLKATA D T. 01-07-2016 FOR THE A.Y 2012-13, WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE PENAL TY OF RS. 5,18,590/- IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY TH E AO. 2. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE A PPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS . HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT ON 25-03- 2014, COPY OF THE SAME IS ON RECORD, AND THE IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT T HE STATUTORY NOTICE DT. 24-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE AO [ J.C.I.T, R ANGE-5, KOLKATA ] U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SSAS EM ERALD MEADOWS SUPRA IN ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHICH WAS A PPROVED 2 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY DISMISSAL OF SPECIA L LEAVE PETITION (SLP) FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DAT ED 5.8.2016. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE CIT-A IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 11-01-2018, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- 1. THE HONBLE ITAT, 'D' BENCH, KOLKATA, IN THE COU RSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL OF M/S.QUADEYA SECURITIES P.LTD VS DCIT CIRCLE-5, KOL KATA FOR A.Y.2012-13, AT THE REQUEST OF THE DR, ALLOWED THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER NON MARKING UPON CONCERNED DETAIL IN THE NO TICE U/S.274, OUTLINING THE TYPE OF DEFAULT WOULD CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF S ATISFACTION AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT. 2. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR631 STATES THAT 'SECTI ON 271 NOWHERE MANDATES THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF ASSE SSEE'S INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS, SATISFACTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FR OM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION.' 3. THE LD. ITAT MUMBAI IN ITS ORDER THE CASE OF TRI SHUL ENTERPRISES 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 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.2 71(1)(C). THE ITAT RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. SMT.KAUSHALYA (1992) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'MERE NOT STRIKING OFF SPECIFIC LIMB CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE NOTICE ISSUED U/ S.274 OF THE ACT. THE L ANGUAGE OF THE SECTION DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. ALL THAT IS REQUIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF SHOW CAUSE.. ' 4. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH) IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & COMPANY VS. CIT IN ITS JUDGEMENT DT.22-08-2017, HAS ALSO HELD THAT '15. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FO R GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO TH E EXTENT OF FRAMING A SPECIFIC CHARGE OR ASKING THE ASSESSEE AN EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED, AS HAS BEEN URGED ..... ' IT FURTHER OB SERVED THAT: '16. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 274 OF THE SAID ACT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IM POSING THE PENALTY BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.' 5. HONBLE MUMBAI E BENCH IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 LOOKED INTO THE ISSUE VERY CLOSELY AND OPINED THAT AFTER PERUSING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEME NT RENDERED IN MANJUNATHA COTON AND GINNING FACTORY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL W AS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MULTIPLE FACTORS AND NOT SOLE LY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN NOTICE U/S 274. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PENAL TY COULD NOT BE DELETED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT POINTED BY THE LD AR IN THE NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED ARE REJECTED. 6. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF !TAT IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M GANDHI VS ACIT [TS-5465-ITAT-2017(MUMBAI)-O] ALSO DEALT WITH THIS ASPECT. THE TAXPAYER HAD NOT OFFERED DIRECTOR'S FEES AND INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THESE INCOMES WERE PICKED UP BY THE TAX OFFICER, THE TAXPAYER ADMITTED EARNIN G OF THE INCOMES AND FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. BASED ON THIS FINDING, THE T AX OFFICER MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WILL BE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TAX OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE REASON FOR PENALTY WAS NOT MENTIONED. THE TAXPAYER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT(A) PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE KHC IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GIN NING FACTORY (SUPRA), THE CIT(A) RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. AGGRIEVED THE TAXPA YER PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT AFTER OBSERVING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E HELD THAT THE TAX OFFICER HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RE LATION TO INVOKING PENALTY PROVISIONS. 3 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 THE TAX OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE DETAILIN G THE REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, N OT MENTIONING THE REASONS IN THE PENALTY NOTICE CANNOT INVALIDATE THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS. 7. HON'BLE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS (P) LTD VS ACIT(OSD) CENTRAL RANGE-S, MUMBAI ON 21 MARCH 2017 HAS STATED AS THER E IS NO DECLARATION OF LAW WHICH MAY BE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CITVERSUS SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS DISMISSED BY HON'BLE APEX COU RT, VIDE SLP (CC NO. 11485/2016) ON 05/08/2016. THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) IS STILL HAVING A BINDING FORC E ON US. THUS, WITH UTMOST REGARDS TO THE JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS MANJ UNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). OUR VIEW ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM A DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHAWAL K. JAIN VS INCOM E TAX OFFICER (ITA NO.996/MUM/2014) ORDER DATED 30/09/2016. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE ARGUMENT OF ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGAL/TECHNICAL GROUND IS REJECTED. THUS, ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AND THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS AFFIRMED. 8. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SERVICE OF NOTIC E UJS.274 FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UJS.271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT, WOULD CON STITUTE VALID INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE CASE MAY BE HEARD ON MERITS. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LD. DR PRAYED TO DISMISS T HE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL AND TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT-A RESPECTIVELY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD .DR. WE FIND THE SAME SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BEFORE T HE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORA RIA IN ITA 956/KOL/16 FOR AY 2010-11, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FACTS IN THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR AND THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE RESPECTIV E HONBLE HIGH COURTS AT BOMBAY AND PATNA AND PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING SUPRA BY TAKING SUPPO RT OF THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE FOR A PROPOSITION WHEN THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN THE FAVOURING OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, WHICH ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 (SC). WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONING OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH IN ITS ORDER DT: 01-12-2017 IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFERENC E: 4 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE 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 SATI SFACTION 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 QU ESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MA NDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DE CISION, 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 MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATE D 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. A CIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISI ONS 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 DECISIO N WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTE D DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATI O 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 H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DO ES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A P ARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE 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 J USTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDIC E IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF N OTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSA L TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DO NE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURAT E PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURIS DICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NO T TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTT ON & 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 SHO ULD 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 THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOT ICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE C ORPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED 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 CA SE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABH ADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVE NUE. THE TRIBUNAL 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 AUTHOR ITY. 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 O R HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DETAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE R EQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR SECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH I S ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AU THORITY. 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 PROCEEDIN GS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NOLONGER EXISTS. IF TH E APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUST AINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGAL SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND T HEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SET-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRI L, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED 5 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL VI Z., 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 CONC EALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AN D 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 REV ENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSI STANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CI T 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 PROP OSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KA USHALYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRAC TS 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 MUM BAI 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 PROCE EDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ME RELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTIO N WHETHER 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 WHISPHER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE POINTE D OUT THIS ASPECT 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 CAS E OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN I N 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 CAUS E NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNI BLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED . 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIG H COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING TH E ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING O F THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENC HES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PA TNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE 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 VI EWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF TH E 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 A SSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY TH E HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE 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 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 OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER P ART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELL ED. 7. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE DT. 24-12-2012 ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE OF OFFENCE C OMMITTED BY THE 6 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016 ASSESSEE VIZ WHETHER HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE T HE SAID NOTICE IS TO BE HELD AS DEFECTIVE. 8. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT REVENUE HAD PREFERRED A SL P BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT WHICH W AS DISMISSED IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 5.8.2016 BY OBSERVING AS UN DER:- UPON HEARING THE COUNSEL, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW ING ORDER DELAY CONDONED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE SPE CIAL LEAVE PETITION IS , ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. PENDING APPLICATION, IF ANY, STANDS DISPOSED OF. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY RS. 5,18,590/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/SEC. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT-A. ACCORDINGLY, THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y UNDER CONSID ERATION ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-0 3-2018 P.M.JAGTAP S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23-03-2018 PP(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. QUADEYA SECURITIES PVT. LT D 184 HARISH MUKHERJEE ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, OPP: 23 PALLY DURGA MANDIR, P.S KALIGHAT, KOLKATA-700 026. 2 RESPONDENT :DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [DCIT], C IRCLE-5, AAYKAR BHAVAN,P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 0 69. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHE S, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR.PS/H.O.O ITAT KOLKATA 7 ITA NO.1989/KOL/2016
Mehul