Sourav Siddhanta, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 57(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2071/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0713 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR CIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PARNASHREE BANE RJEE LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 69; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BE NCH, KOLKATA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017 & S.A NO.102/KOL/2017 [IN ITA NO.2071/KOL/20 17 A.Y 2011-12] SOURAV SIDDHANTA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER PAN: ALFPS 6626L WARD 57(4), KOLKATA [APPLICANT ] [RESPONDENT ] APPLICANT/APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARNASHREE BANE RJEE, ADVOCATE, LD.AR RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR , ADDL.CIT, LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-12-2017 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS STAY APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S EEKING GRANT OF STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.10,04,720/- ARISEN OUT OF ORDER OF THE CIT-A CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,04,720/- IMPOSED U/S. 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL (ITA NO.2071/KOL/2017 FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 AGAINST SUCH O RDER OF CIT-A IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER T HE CIT-A IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS. 10,04,720/- IMPOSED U/S. 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR PRAYED TO TAKE UP THE M AIN APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017 FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 FOR THE H EARING AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS . HE ALSO S.A NO. 102/KOL/2017 [ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017] SOURAV SIDDHANTA 2 SUBMITS THAT THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE NO TICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT ON 27-03-2014 AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION SUPRA THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS N OT MAINTAINABLE. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT IF AT ALL, TH IS TRIBUNAL TAKES UP THE MAIN APPEAL FOR HEARING, THEN HE WILL NOT PRESS FOR HEARING OF THE PRESENT STAY APPLICATION (NO. 102/KOL/2017). THE LD .DR SUBMITS THAT ONE AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MAIN APPEAL IS CHALLENGING THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE AND REPORTED NO OBJECTION FOR HEARING OF MAIN APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE MAIN APPE AL AFTER HEARING OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERI TS. 4. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT T HE STATUTORY NOTICE DT. 27-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 274 R .W.S 271 OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSES SEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS SUPRA IN ITA NO. 380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHICH WAS LATER APPROVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 5.8.2016. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF THE CIT-A IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES IMPOSED U/S. 271( 1) ( C ) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 274 F OR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE I.T ACT WOULD CONSTITUTE VALID INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO PR AYED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTIES IMPO SED AND SUSTAINED BY THE AO AND CIT-A. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON B Y THE LD.DR. WE S.A NO. 102/KOL/2017 [ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017] SOURAV SIDDHANTA 3 FIND THE SAME SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JE ETMAL CHORARIA IN ITA 956/KOL/16 FOR AY 2010-11, WHEREIN THE COORDIN ATE BENCH ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FACTS IN THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR AND PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE HO NBLE HIGH COURTS AT BOMBAY AND PATNA AND PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING SUPRA BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THE E STABLISHED PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 (SC). WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONING OF THE IN ITS O RDER DT: 01-12-2017 OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JEETM AL CHORARIA AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: 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 S.A NO. 102/KOL/2017 [ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017] SOURAV SIDDHANTA 4 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 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 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WA S LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) I S OF NO ASSISTANCE 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 S.A NO. 102/KOL/2017 [ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017] SOURAV SIDDHANTA 5 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-STRIK ING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUN AL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL B ENCHS AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THER E ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE 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 FAVOURABL E TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW E XPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTT ON & 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 27 4 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. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIE R PART 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. 27-03-2014 ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE OF OFFEN CE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ WHETHER HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE NCE THE SAID NOTICE IS TO BE HELD AS DEFECTIVE. 8. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED A SLP B EFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT WHICH WAS DISMI SSED IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 5.8.2016 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 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 LEVIED OF RS.10,04,720/- BY THE AO U/S EC.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT-A. ACCORDINGLY, T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y UNDER CON SIDERATION ARE ALLOWED AND THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. S.A NO. 102/KOL/2017 [ITA NO. 2071/KOL/2017] SOURAV SIDDHANTA 6 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED AND STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-12-2017 SD/- SD/- M.BALAGANESH S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13-12-2017 PP(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPLICANT/ASSESSEE:SHRI SOURAV SIDDHANTA FLAT NO. 3 01, 3 RD FLOOR, LINA APARTMENTS, 14/33 GOLF CLUB ROAD, TOLLYGUNGE,K OLKATA-33. 2 RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD 57(4), KOLKATA, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 169 AJC BOSE ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 10, KOLKATA-14. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR.P.S, HEAD OF OFFICE ITAT KOLKATA