Ratnashekhar Hemchand Dudoo, Solapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1992/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7121 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , ! ' # , $% &' #' , ' # '( BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWAS THY, JM '%. / ITA NO. 1986/PUN/2014 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI RAVINDU RATNASHEKHAR DUDOO, A/P. NATEPUTE, TAL.-MALSHIRAS, DISTT.-SOLAPUR PAN : AAQPD7801H ....... / APPELLANT /VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT '%. / ITA NO. 1987/PUN/2014 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI VIRENDRA RATNASHEKHAR DUDOO, M/S. PUSHKAR JEWELLERS, MAIN ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, A/P. NATEPUTE, DISTT.-SOLAPUR PAN : AAQPD5401L ....... / APPELLANT /VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT '%. / ITA NOS. 1988 TO 1991/PUN/2014 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2010-11 SHRI RAJENDRA RATNASHEKHAR DUDOO, M/S. SAGAR JEWELLERS, MAIN ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, A/P. NATEPUTE, DISTT.-SOLAPUR PAN : AEWPD6926J ....... / APPELLANT /VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 '%. / ITA NOS. 1992 & 1993/PUN/2014 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 SHRI RATNASHEKHAR HEMCHAND DUDOO, M/S. PUSHKAR JEWELLERS, MAIN ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, A/P. NATEPUTE, DISTT.-SOLAPUR PAN : AIPPD2072R ....... / APPELLANT /VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 21-02-2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-02-2017 , / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE BUNCH OF EIGHT APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OF DU DOO GROUP ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-CENTRAL, PUNE CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 2 71(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN CA SE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN CA SE OF SHRI RAJENDRA RATNASHEKHAR DUDOO PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS ALS O BEEN LEVIED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. IN CASE OF SHRI RATNASHEKHAR HEMCHAND DUDOO IN ADDITION ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 3 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AS W ELL. SINCE, THE FACTS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, ALL THE APPEALS ARE T AKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : ALL THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE PART OF DUD OO GROUP AND ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY. A SEARCH ACTIO N WAS CARRIED OUT ON DUDOO GROUP ON 07-12-2010. DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH AND JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED. ALL THE ASS ESSEES DECLARED UNACCOUNTED MONEY FROM LENDING TRANSACTIONS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A, THE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE RETU RN OF INCOME ON 02-09-2011. THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME RETURNED BY T HE ASSESSEES IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A ARE AS UNDER : SR. NO. ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR INCOME RETURNED (INCLUDING INCOME DECLARED IN SURVEY) INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY 1 1986/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 81,73,770/ - ` 80,83,000/ - 2 1987/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 44,43,250/ - ` 40,00,000/ - 3 1988/PUN/2014 2007 - 08 ` 3,42,220/ - ` 1,23,000/ - 4 1989/PUN/2014 2008 - 09 ` 4,39,630/ - ` 2,58,000/ - 5 1990/PUN/2014 2009 - 10 ` 11,28,540/ - ` 8,40,000/ - 6 1991/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 39,41,740/ - ` 34,11,900/ - 7 1992/PUN/2014 2009 - 10 ` 16,78,250/ - ` 15,00,000/ - 8 1993/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 27,34,270/ - ` 25,00,000/ - WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF INCOME DISCLOSE D DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) R.W. EXPLANATION 5A. THE DETAILS OF THE PENALTY LEVIED ARE AS UNDER : 4 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 SR. NO. ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR PENALTY 1 1986/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 15,30,010/ - 2 1987/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 12,36,000/ - 3 1988/PUN/2014 2007 - 08 ` 38,560/ - 4 1989/PUN/2014 2008 - 09 ` 79,720/ - 5 1990/PUN/2014 2009 - 10 ` 2,85,520/ - 6 1991/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 11,01,585/ - 7 1992/PUN/2014 2009 - 10 ` 5,09,850/ - 8 1993/PUN/2014 2010 - 11 ` 7,72,500/ - AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, THE ASSESSEES FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSEES AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) R .W. EXPLANATION 5A OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEES ARE IN SEC OND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING CONFIRMING OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S . 271(1)(C) ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL IMPUGNING THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE REC ORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 274, SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALT Y HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. SHRI S.N. DOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESS MENT ORDER HAS NOT PROPERLY RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 -01-2013 FROM ITA NO. 1987/PN/2014, THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 5 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 ` 40,00,000/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER SEA RCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS NOT MENTIONED WHETHE R THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE. THEREAFTER, WHILE ISSUING NOTICE DATED 31-01-2013 U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK O FF THE IRRELEVANT LIMB OF THE CHARGE MENTIONED IN PROFORMA NOTICE. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEE N LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) R.W. EXPLANATION 5A FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE RECORDIN G SATISFACTION AND AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT AND THUS, HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HIMSELF NOT CLEAR AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND HENCE, THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 05-01-201 7 (BOM-HC); II. KANHAIYALAL D. JAIN VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X IN ITA NOS. 1201 TO 1205/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 DECIDED ON 30-11-2016 (ITAT-PUNE); III. NANDKISHOR TULSIDAS KATORE VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NOS. 2174 TO 2180/PN/2014 FOR THE 6 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 DECIDED ON 14-12 -2016 (ITAT-PUNE); IV. V.T. PALRESHA AND CO. PVT. LTD. VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NOS. 1712 TO 1715/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09 AND 2010-11 DEC IDED ON 21-12-2016 (ITAT-PUNE). 4.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESS EES AS WELL THE SATISFACTION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN RECORDED IN SIMILAR MANNER AND WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IRRELEVANT PARTS IN THE PROFORMA NOTICE SPECIFYING THE CHARGE H AS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1987/PUN/2014 WOULD EQUALLY APPLY IN THE REMAINING APPEALS AS WELL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SANJEEV GHEI REPRESENTING TH E DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT, BUT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION THE A SSESSEES WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME. IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ADDIT IONAL INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY D EFENDED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENT ATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE FACTS IN ALL 7 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE ARE TAKING ITA NO. 1987/PUN/2014 AS LEAD CASE FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY RAISING SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS. BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REPORTED AS 359 ITR 565 FOR NONE STRIKING OF ONE OF THE LIMBS IN THE NOTICE ISSUE D U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO CONFINED HIS SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 ONLY. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-01-2013 PASSED U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT REVEAL THAT WHILE RECORDING SA TISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS A RE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ONLY REASON MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATING PENALTY IS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREAFTER, IN NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31-01-2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILE D TO SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY IS IN ITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SAID NOTICE READS US UNDER : NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN : AAQPD5401L OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE DATE :- 31/01/2013 8 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 TO, SHRI VIRENDRA RATNASHEKHAR DUDOO M/S. PUSHKAR JEWELLERS, MAIN ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, A/P, NATEPUTE, TAL-MALSHIRAS, SOLAPUR WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU :- *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH ME RETURN OF INCOME WHICH YOUR WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH BY A NOTICE GIV EN UNDER SECTION 22(1) 22(2) / 34 OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 OR WHICH YO U WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH U/S. 139(1) OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN U/S. 139(2) / 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO._____________________________________DATED _____ ______________OR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITHI N THE TIME ALLOWED AND THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SAID SECTION 139(1) OR BY SU CH NOTICE. *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WIT H A NOTICE U/S. 22(4)/23(2) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 OR U /S. 142(1) / 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.___________________________ DATED ___________________ *HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR _ _______________ FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11. 45 A.M./P.M. ON 28/03/2013 AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 271 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF HIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUS E IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY S UCH ORDER IS MADE U/S. 271(1)(C). SD/- (MAHESH G JASNANI) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE 8. WHILE LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 26-0 7-2013 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED : 5. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PR OVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO EVA DE THE TAX AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) R.W. EXPLANATION 5A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 9. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF NOTICE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS NOT CLEAR AS TO UNDER WHAT CHARGE PENALTY HAS TO BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE IS VAGUE AS IT FAILS TO CLEAR LY SPELL OUT THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE FOR INITIATING PENALTY 9 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PE NALTY FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE DOCUMENTS ON RECOR D REVEAL NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS HELD : 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE A CT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF A NY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT W HETHER 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 PA I REPORTED IN [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC) AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY D IFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEER ING WORKS REPORTED IN [1980] 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VIRGO MARKETING P. LTD. REPORTED IN [2008] 171 TAXM AN 156 , HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTA INABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE F IRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATEL Y MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES W ILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. 11. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA) REITERATING THE VIEW OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) H AS HELD THAT FAILURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY SPECIFY IN NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY I.E. WHETHER THE PENA LTY IS BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS FATAL. IT REFLECTS NON-APPLICATION O F MIND AND RENDERS THE LEVY OF PENALTY INVALID. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS, WE HOLD THAT T HE NOTICE 10 ITA NOS. 1986 TO 1993/PUN/2014 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS INVALID AND THUS, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM ARE VITIATED. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. OUR ABOVE FINDINGS DELETING THE PENALTY WOULD MUTATIS M UTANDIS APPLY TO THE APPEALS OF OTHER ASSESSEES HEREIN, AS WELL. HENCE, THE PENALTY IN ITA NOS. 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 & 1993/PUN/2014 ARE DELETED FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN DELETING THE PENALTY IN ITA NO. 1987/PUN/2014. THE IMPUGNED ORDE RS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( ! / VIKAS AWASTHY) ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / PUNE; $% / DATED : 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 RK , - ./& 0&+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & & ' () / THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL, PUNE 4. & & ' / THE CIT-CENTRAL, PUNE 5. *+ ,- , & ,- , . ./ , ' / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. +01 23 / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// &'4 / BY ORDER, 5 %6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, & ,- , ' / ITAT, PUNE