DCIT, Circle-4, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2067/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1555 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 1988-1989
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N O N E
• Assessee Lawyers: ANJAN KR BANDYOPADHYAY

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.2067/KOL/2014 ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD., AY 1988-89 , C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . , /AND . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI A. T. VA RKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 2067/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1988-89 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA VS. M/S. ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD. (PAN:AACCA4245Q) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 20.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.07.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI ANJAN KR. BANDYOPADHYAY, AR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, KOLKATA DATED 01.08.2014 FOR AY 1988-89 FOR DELETIN G THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SHRI ANJAN KR. BANDYOPADHYAY DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.1991 WHEREIN BOTH THE FAULTS I.E. CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HA VE BEEN REPRODUCED WITHOUT STRIKING OUT ANY ONE OF THE FAULTS SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD BE PUT ON NOTICE FOR THE FAULT/CHARGE THAT HE IS BEING GIVEN NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE NO TE THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REPOR TED IN (2013) 359 ITR 565 (KAR) HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE DID NOT SPELL OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHET HER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS, REPORTED IN 2 ITA NO.2067/KOL/2014 ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD., AY 1988-89 (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR) ENDORSED THE SAME V IEW 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 27.03.1991 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 CONCUR WITH THE ACTION OF THE L D. CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. WE HAVE NOT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE IMPUGNED LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WHILE CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DELETE THE PENALTY ON THE AFORESAID LEGAL GROUND SO WE DO NOT WISH TO COMMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, ON THIS ALTERNATE LEGAL GROUND, WE CONFI RM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.07.2017 SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12TH JULY, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NO.2067/KOL/2014 ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD., AY 1988-89 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD., 8, DR. RAJE NDRA PRASAD SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY