Ranjit Das, Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-XIII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1999/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1543 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAKOLI DAS ITO
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAV SHETH ACA

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.1999/KOL/2014 RANJIT DAS, AY 2009-10 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE .., /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM] I.T.A. NO. 1999/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 RANJIT DAS (PAN: AIIPD1588J) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 10.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.07.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI NIRAV SHETH, ACA FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. KAKOLI DAS, ITO ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA DATED 21.08.2014 FOR AY 2009-10 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SHRI NIRAV SHETH, ACA DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 17.10.2011 SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT STRICKEN OUT TH E LIMB OF CHARGE/DEFAULT FOR WHICH THE PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. W E FIND THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR HAVING CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WITHOUT SPECIFYING FOR WHICH FAULT THE ASSES SEE IS BEING PROCEEDED AGAINST. WE NOTE THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KA RNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN (2013) 359 I TR 565 (KAR) HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE DID NOT SPELL OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS 2 ITA NO.1999/KOL/2014 RANJIT DAS, AY 2009-10 EMERALD MEADOWS, REPORTED IN (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR) ENDORSED THE SAME VIEW IN MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD B EEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMAN N.COM 250(KAR). 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUD GMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF L AW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBL E HIGH COURT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY PREF ERRING AN SLP WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED WHICH FACT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN CIT VS. S SAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC). 3. WE NOTE THAT SINCE THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 17.10.2011 DID NOT SPELL OUT AS TO WHICH DEFAULT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMM ITTED FOR WHICH PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ORDER IN MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTOR Y (SUPRA) AND SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA), WE CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY T HE AO WHICH HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.07.2017 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12TH JULY, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NO.1999/KOL/2014 RANJIT DAS, AY 2009-10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SHRI RANJIT DAS, CHHAPARIA & ASSOCIATES , CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 8, CAMAC STREET, SHANTINIKETAN BUILDIN G, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 2, KOLKATA-700 017. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY