Income Tax Officer, Bangalore V. Shri.B.M.Muniraju, Bangalore

ITA 212/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7416 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU J
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 212 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 THE ITO, WARD 1 (3) (1), BANGALORE VS. SHRI B. M. MUNIRAJU, SCIENCE INSTITUTE POST OFFICE, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560 012. PAN: AYTPM5350L APPELLANT RESPONDENT AND C. O. NO. 73/BANG/2017 IN ITA NO. 212 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 SHRI B. M. MUNIRAJU, SCIENCE INSTITUTE POST OFFICE, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE 560 012. PAN: AYTPM5350L VS. THE ITO, WARD 1 (3) (1), BANGALORE CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI M. K. BIJU , J CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 . 10 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .10 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A REVENUES APPEAL AND THE C. O. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 1, BENGALUR U DATED 30.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE C. O. FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN THE C. O., THIS IS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 RWS 271 OF THE ACT AS TO WHETHER THE ITA NO.212 & C. O. NO. 73/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 PENALTY PROCEEDING IS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED BY CIT (A). 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NO TICE DATED 29.12.2011 ISSUED U/S 274 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND IN THIS NOTICE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT S IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER SHOULD B E QUASHED. LEARNED DR OF REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF SHRI P. M. ABDULLA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1223 & 1224/BANG/2012 DA TED 17.10.2016. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THIS JUDGMENT OF HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 AND THEREAFTER, HAS CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARD ING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE R EVENUE, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 9 OF THIS ORDER THAT THE COLUMN RELEVANT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN TICKE D BY THE A.O. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER THE NOTICE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS NEITHER ANY TICKING NOR ANY PORTION IS CROSSED OUT. HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE ANY JUDGMENT HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT NOTICE UN DER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURN ISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SENDING PRINTED FO RM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE JUDGMENT ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNO W THE GROUNDS WHICH HE ITA NO.212 & C. O. NO. 73/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE PRESENT PENALTY ORDER IS NOT LEGALLY VALID AND HENCE, WE QUASH THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE C. O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. 6. SINCE PENALTY ORDER IS QUASHED AS ABOVE, THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE C. O. OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.