M/s. Rathi Loha Impex Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 4(1) , Kolkata

ITA 2365/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1157 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHRUBHAJYOTI ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( )BEFORE . , /AND . # . $ , ) [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI A. T. VAR KEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 2365/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD. (PAN: AAECP7475P) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 04.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.05.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI DHRUBHAJYOTI ROY, JCIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, KOLKATA DATED 12.09.2018 FOR AY 2014-15 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IM POSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT). 2. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE TA KE NOTE FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. GROUND NO.3 WHIC H IS AGAINST THE INVALID NOTICE OF AO IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REPRODUC ED AS UNDER: 3. FOR THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. AO U/S. 274 READ WITH SEC. 271 OF I. T. ACT, 1961 DATED 26.10.2016 IS VOID AB INITIO AND ILLEGAL BECA USE THE NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME O R HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME AND HENCE, SO THERE IS B REACH OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY EVEN OTHE RWISE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.10.16, THE LD. AO AS MENTIONED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY THE NOTICE IS NULL AND VOID. 3. WE ALSO NOTE FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SAME GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT 2 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 GIVEN ANY CREDENCE TO THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT IF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO PROPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR W HETHER THE FAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE FAULT BY NOT STRIKING OUT WHICH IS NO T APPLICABLE, THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2 015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHAR GE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ALSO NOTE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.114 85 OF 2016 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISS ED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.115 4 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNAT HA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAP RASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENT ICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED B EFORE US BY THE LD. DR HAS BEEN DEALT WITH ELABORATELY BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL 3 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 CHORARIA VS. ACIT, ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 FOR AY 2010 -11 DATED 01.12.2017, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AS UNDER: 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 T HE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QUESTION OF REC ORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHOW CA USE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW I S 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), MUMBA I, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976 /MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS 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 DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WR ITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SA ME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEE N 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 PARTICULA R FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI- CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE A SSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURA L JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOL LOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. 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 DH ANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONA L HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW D ECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE D ECISION 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 SHOULD 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 AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CO RPORATION (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 4 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SH OW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFOR E THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTT ON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS CL EAR THAT IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTI CE 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 OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DETAILS. THE NOT ICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR SECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MAD E ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THE APPEAL, TH E SAID FINDING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UND ER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCE EDINGS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NO LONGER EXISTS. IF T HE 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 THE REFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SET-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. A GGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBL E HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL VIZ., 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 INCOM E OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETH ER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QU ESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOV ING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS 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 I S AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUP RA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FURNISH ED 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 PROCEEDIN GS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDING S ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, TH AT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO WHISPH ER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EAR LIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS 5 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RATIO L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNI NG (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN 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 PROPOSIT ION THAT THE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHA RGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALT Y 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 NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING TH E ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE IN ACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUM BAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE H AVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES O F TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAN JUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE O N AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER T O FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNA THA COTTON & 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 INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIK E OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTE D. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND SUBS EQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH MAY, 2020 SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29TH MAY, 2020 6 ITA NO.2365/KOL/2018 RATHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD, AY 2014-15 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT M/S. RALTHI LOHA IMPEX PVT. LTD., 4, F AIRLIE PLACE, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 134, KOLKATA-700 001. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A)-2, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .